Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

American Exceptionalism as the USA version of nationalism

News Who Rules America Recommended books Recommended Links Economic costs of American Exceptionalism American imperialism: the attempt to secure global hegemony What's the Matter with Kansas
Andrew Bacevich on the American militarism Diplomacy by deception American imperialism: the attempt to secure global hegemony Big Uncle is Watching You Industrial Espionage Edward Snowden as Symbol of Resistance to National Security State Damage to the US tech companies
National Security State Corporatism Resurgence of neofascism as reaction on crisis of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization  Neoconservatism as a stage of development of Neoliberalism Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Understanding Mayberry Machiavellians (Rovism) The History of Media-Military-Industrial Complex Concept
Narcissism as Key American Value Anti-Americanism Nation under attack meme National Socialism and Military Keysianism Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime Authoritarian Corporatism Terrorism as a smokesreen for National Security State implementation
Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the Elite Fighting Russophobia Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ? American Exceptionalism as Civil Religion Fighting Neo-Theocracy Inside democratization hypocrisy fair The Unlikely History of American Exceptionalism Walter A. McDougall
Quotes Mark Twain Quotes Niccolo Machiavelli Reinhold Niebuhr Propaganda Quotes Politically Incorrect Humor Etc

Introduction


I call it a tribal phenomena. A tribe can be a religion, a nation, a gender, a race, or any group which is different from the group you identify with. It is not confined to religion.

And it seems to be an inherent trait in the human species that was one aspect of our evolution. Only when we learn that it is better to cooperate with each other rather than kill each other will we be free from this deadly disease which may, in the end, destroy us all.

sheridan44 comment in The Guardian

[American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

According to George Soros, the events of 9/11 renewed a "distorted view" of American supremacy that "postulates that because we are stronger than others, we must know better and we must have right on our side."  In other words 9/11 was important step to the transformation of the USA in the "National Security State" with the permanent regime of Total survellance" over the population. The next step were events of 2008, which signified crisis of neoliberalism as an ideology. Neoliberalism now can mostly be propagated by brute force, via military intervention or some form of coup d'état (aka color revolutions) much like Trotskyites planned to propagate socialism to other countries via Permanent Revolution.  With  "Democracy promotion" instead of "liberation of proletariat".

Rise of American exeptionalism is also connected with the reaction to neoliberalism with its redistribution of wealth up by most of US population. Actually this is global phenomenon: neoliberalism gives strong impulse to the rise of neofascism in many countries, not only in the USA. As William I. Robinson noted in his article  Global Capitalism Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism  

Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21st century fascism.5   The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims.

Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.

American exceptionalism is unique in many ways as it does not include mass mobilization (see Inverted Totalitarism). "Go shopping" famously recommended George W Bush after 9/11. It should probably be more correctly called US-specific version of far right nationalism. The latter is  a milder variant of  one that existed in 30th of the last century in national-socialist countries of Europe, such as Italy and Spain, which does not necessarily employ physical violence against political opponents.  

The sad fact is that the America of today is even more arrogant than the America  in the days of Manifest Destiny and gunboat diplomacy. Indeed, the dissolution of the USSR cemented the national myth of superiority. The establishment of unparalleled industrial might, military victories in two world wars and on both sides of the globe, and the staggering economic defeat of Communism in the Cold War all have combined to cement America’s presumption of  chapters in a long history of escalating national illusions of pre-eminence and blind national egoism. The dominant view about the USA from most countries is that it has a split paranoid personality,  a “Jekyll and Hyde” America, “a democracy inside, an empire outside.” American policy makers, with their pretensions of global superiority after collapse of the USSR and with ever-increasing power of their military machine moved steadily toward making the whole globe a US preserve.  Despite its vulgarity and borderline obsession with pornography (or may be because of that) the US culture made inroad all over the globe, and even in Europe and Russia despite rich cultural traditions of both. While the blatant American imperialism of the turn of the last century is now only a memory, today the nations face policies evidence more insidious brands of imperialism: cultural imperialism, economic imperialism,  the imperialism of neoliberal ideology and forced globalization on the US terms.  All are spread by the same national arrogance, the same cock-sure certainly that we are right.  Many nations fear the United States practices a contemporary brand of “soft imperialism,” enslaving nations with IMF debt meachisms under  the auspice of economic globalization.  Converting  the Third World in debt slaves or simply exploit it. In spite of such fears, and despite the setbacks, Americans remain convinced that eventually all nations are destined to fall into step and adopt “the American way.” All the while, the US politicians decry the rigid fundamentalism of our enemies while we remain utterly blind to our own.

Americans have been, and are today, exposed almost from birth to a particularly virulent strain of nationalism unlike that found in other modern nations. The resulting affliction stems from an unswerving faith in national superiority and uniqueness that is deeply ingrained in the American mind. Historically, these notions of superiority sprang from myths of the visions of chosen-ness, and high destiny; from the myth of frontier self-sufficiency; and finally from the perceived universality of American ideology and dominance of US culture and English language over the globe. While in some of us, nationalist feelings are not that pronounced, few of us are immune, and that is especially visible in times of anger, or fear. In spite of, and perhaps because of, our many strengths, practically all of us as Americans share this particularly prideful, unlovely, and potentially fatal weakness. In one form or another and to some degree or another, we carry national pride across the invisible boundary that separates benign patriotism from malignant far right nationalism. Hillary candidacy demonstrates that this process went too far and became really  malignant:

Still, Americans are sure that they, like Woodrow Wilson, have seen “visions that other nations have not seen,” and that, accordingly, the United States’ mission has always been to become the “light of the world.”28 Indeed, from the very beginning, the American national identity was built on audacious visions of chosen-ness, destiny, and mission. Ronald Reagan was not the first nor the last in a long line of entrenched American visionaries to proclaim American exceptionalism, with its missionary implications of the Puritan “city on the hill,” no longer a stationary beacon, but an active force, the “leader of the free world” directing its forces against “empires of evil.”29

With such visions comes a warning: “the adoption of political and social values … as a framework for national identification is possible only if these values are based on some source of apparent ultimate truth which confers on them absolute validity — if they can claim universality.”30 If Americans unflinchingly believe that theirs is the single principle of Absolute Truth representing the universal interests of humankind, then any opposition will appear either criminal or inhuman.31 As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. puts it, “Those who are convinced that they have a monopoly on Truth always feel that they are saving the world when they slaughter heretics. Their object remains the making of the world over in the image of their dogmatic ideology — their goal is a monolithic world, organized on the principle of the infallibility of a single creed.”32 If Americans are so egotistical as to believe that their nation with its gleaming lamp of Ultimate Truth is the envy of the world, then they will perceive no wrong in trying to make the world over in America’s image, by whatever means. However, the world is a very complex and diverse place, and Ultimate Truth is a highly elusive and unstable substance. Thus, these are not only very arrogant ideas; they are also very dangerous ideas.

The way in which American elite as a whole relates with the rest of the world demonstrates a strong nationalistic (as in cultural nationalism) and chauvinistic point of view. That means that mass media presents events only from the particular  point of view, that militarism is always encouraged and defended. With the considerable part of brainwashed lemmings (aka American public) believing that their nation, or culture, is superior to all others.

This view involves a unique mixture of prejudice, xenophobia and inter-group and in-group violence, with the latter directed at suppression of dissent. Indeed, the United States’ inflated sense of eminence create additional, non-economic stimulus for the country elite to act in  fundamentally ethnocentric ways, and to to strive for unilateral rule of the world using military supremacy as door opener to resources of other nations.  And first of all oil.

The other key support of American exeptionalism are large financial institutions, which depend on the success of the US "financial imperialism". We can view imperialism as ethnocentrism in action. And "financial imperialism" is very similar to "old-style" European imperialism, where  European nations discovered new lands and imposed capitalism, their system of law and culture on the native peoples usually through violence. Like old colonies were forced to abandon their way of life and adopt a “superior” lifestyle and became resource base of metropolia, financial imperialism impose debt on other nations keeping them in a kind of debt slavery with the same result: they also became resource base for metropolia. 

American exceptionalism might also have religious overtones as "citi on the hill" metaphor implies.  It is not thus accidental that the first deep analyses of American exceptionalism was done by Niebuhr from the religious positions in his famous book The Irony of American History. Niebuhr as a theologian came to conclusion that it represents a sin that inevitably lead to the false allure of simple solutions and lack of appreciation of limits of power. In his opinion "Messianic consciousness" which constitute the core of American exceptionalism, was partially inherited form religious dogmas of early religious sects which came to colonize America.  Those views were later enhanced and developed further by Professor Bacevich. See more details exposition of his views on the subject in the page New American Militarism

Any unbiased analysis of the nationalist activities leads to a disappointing conclusion: nationalists can behave as compradors: as enthusiastic servants of a foreign occupier of their own territory. In this case international banking cartel. Ukraine is one example, Serbia and Georgia are other but very similar examples. In the same way the USA can be viewed as a country occupied by financial oligarchy with most of its citizents converted into "debt slaves".

The policy which oppose exceptionalism is often called Noninterventionism

Noninterventionism is a rather clunky and unappealing label for a set of very appealing ideas: that the U.S. should mind its own business, act with restraint, respect other nations, refrain from unnecessary violence, and pursue peace. If future administrations took just a few of these as guiding principles for the conduct of foreign policy, America and the world would both be better off.

There were several important thinkers who contributed to understand of this complex and multifaceted, like any type of nationalism,  phenomena. We will discuss (in breif) just four thinkers that made significant impact in understanding of this very complex concept. Among them: 

  1. Niebuhr
  2. Michael Ignatieff
  3. Anatol Lieven
  4. Andrew Basevich

American neo-conservatism  is a closely related phenomenon. In this case the key point is that the pre-eminence of the USA as the sole superpower needs to be maintained at all costs and with wide use of military force. Among prominent neocons we can name Hillary Clinton and most of republican candidates for the presidency in the 2016 presidential race. That means that American exeptionalism is an establishment view, the view of the US elite, not some anomaly.  

Niebuhr's contribution to understanding of American exeptionalism

In his brilliant foreword to Niebuhr's book The Irony of American History Bacevich noted:

In Niebuhr's view, America's rise to power derived less from divine favor than from good fortune combines with a fierce determination to convert that good fortune in wealth and power. The good fortune cane in the form of vast landscape, rich in resources, ripe for exploitation, and apparently insulated from the bloody cockpit of [European] power politics. The determination found expression in a strategy of commercial and territorial expansionism that proved staggeringly successful, evidence not of superior virtue but of shrewdness punctuated with a considerable capacity for ruthlessness.

In describing America's rise to power Niebuhr does not shrink from using words like "hegemony" and "imperialism". His point is not to tag the United States with responsibility for all the world's evils. Rather, it is to suggest that it does not differ from other great powers as much as Americans may imagine.

...Niebuhr has little patience for those who portray the United States as acting on God's behalf. "All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in this political cause by investing it with religious sanctity," he once observed. " This is why religion is more frequently a source of confusion then of light in the political realm.". In the United States, he continued "The tendency to equate our political [goals] with our Christian convictions cause politics to generate idolatry."

Michael Ignatieff contribution to understanding of American exeptionalism

In the introduction to American Exceptionalism and Human Rights Michael Ignatieff identifies three main types of exceptionalism:

I would add to it

The contributors to American Exceptionalism and Human Rights use Ignatieff's essay as a starting point to discuss specific types of exceptionalism -- America's approach to capital punishment and to free speech, for example -- or to explore the social, cultural, and institutional roots of exceptionalism.

Anatol Lieven contribution

The second important contribution to to the studies of American exceptionalism is Anatol Lieven.  He correctly linked American exceptionalism with far right nationalism which Wikipedia defined as

Far-right politics or extreme-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum. They often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. They tend to include disregard or disdain for egalitarianism, if not overt support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism

 "America keeps a fine house," Anatol Lieven writes in his probably best book on the American Exceptionalism (America Right or Wrong An Anatomy of American Nationalism ) "but in its cellar there lives a demon, whose name is nationalism."  In a way US neocons, who commanded key position in Bush II and Barack Obama administrations  are not that different from Israeli Likud Party. 

While neocons definitely played an important role in shaping the US policy immediately after 9/11, the origins of aggressive U.S. foreign policy since 9/11 also reflect controversial character of the US national identity, which according to Anatol Lieven embraces two contradictory features.

Both of those tendencies are much older then 9/11. The first aggressive, expansionist war by the US was the war of 1812. See American Loyalists, The Most Important War You Probably Know Nothing About - By James Traub Foreign Policy

The War of 1812 matters because it was America’s first war of choice. The United States did not have to declare war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812, to survive as a nation and indeed President James Madison did not want to. The newly founded United States was growing westward but the “war hawks” in Congress pressed for a conflict with America’s former colonial masters in the hopes of gaining even more territory to the north. The term “hawk” was coined in the run-up to the War of 1812 and the hawks of U.S. foreign policy have been with us ever since.

The War of 1812 was America’s first neocon war. With an audacity that would become familiar, the war hawks appealed to a combination of personal pride — the British navy was forcibly conscripting Americans — and the prospect of material gain — the absorption of British Canada — wrapped up in love of country. No one said the conquest of Canada would be a “cakewalk,” but the hawks were confident the Americans would be greeted as liberators.

These two mutually-excusive impulses caused wild oscillations of the US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East and influenced the nature of U.S. support for Israel. Due to those oscillations those two contradictory impulses are undermining the U.S. foreign policy credibility in the eyes of the worlds and complicates reaching important national objectives.

Some attribute the term “American Exceptionalism” to Alexis de Tocqueville — though he never penned the phrase. In reality this term originated by German Marxists who were trying to explain weakness of worker movement in the USA. The idiom was popularized by neo-conservative pundits (aka former Trotskyites) soon after WWII.

In reality the term "American Exceptionalism is nothing but a disguised, more "politically correct" reference to America's Janus-faced nationalism. It has some mystical components like long vanished under the hill of financial oligarchy the "American dream" and its German-style refrain "God bless America". What is interesting about "God bless America" is that most founding fathers were Deists, profoundly critical of organized religions and they sought to separate personal -- what many of them described as mythologies -- from government. They were profoundly respectful of personal religious belief, but saw government as necessarily secular if freedom was to prevail. Not until the religious revivals of the 1820s through the 1860s can you find many identifying religion as a component of American exceptionalism.

As Martin Woollacott aptly noted in his review of Anatol Lieven book America, Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism ( Guardian):

He cuts through the conformist political rhetoric of America, the obfuscating special language of the "American dream", or the "American exception", which infects even foreign accounts. Even to use the word "nationalism" to describe an American phenomenon is, as he notes, not normal. Americans are not "nationalist", they are "patriotic". It is a patriotism which too often leaves no room for the patriotism of others, combining a theoretical care for all humanity with, in practice, an "indifference verging on contempt" for the interests and hopes of non-Americans. Nothing could be more distant from "the decent respect to the opinions of mankind" recommended to Americans in the early years of their independent existence

Lieven first paints a picture of an in some ways admirable American "civic nationalism", based on respect for the rule of law, constitutionality, democracy, and social (but not economic) equality, and a desire to spread these values in the world. But because this nationalism unrealistically holds that such "American" values can be exported at will, it blinds Americans to the different nature of other societies, sustaining the mistaken idea that if only particular rulers or classes can be displaced, "democracy" will prevail - a "decapitation" theory which contributed to the decision to attack Saddam. The American campaign to democratize other societies, Lieven says, harshly but fairly, "combines sloppiness of intellect and meanness of spirit". But, while in part mythic and not entirely rational, this side of American nationalism is of some value not only to the United States, but to the world as a whole.

...The result, Lieven argues, is that instead of the mature nationalism of a satisfied and dominant state, American nationalism is more akin to that of late developing and insecure states such as Wilhelmine Germany and Tsarist Russia.

"While America keeps a splendid and welcoming house," Lieven writes in his preface, "it also keeps a family of demons in its cellar.

His book supports Mark Twain quite to the effect that we are blessed with three things in this country, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and, thirdly, the common sense to practice neither one!

He also points at the very important side effect of Exceptionalism: "America's hypocrisy," (see for example Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair). An outstanding level of hypocrisy in the US foreign policy also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American (although British are strong competitors). Now after Snowden, Libya, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc we might be appear to be entering an new stage on which "The era of easy hypocrisy is over."

The regime of easy hypocrisy means that America position itself as a blessed nation created by God and (here’s the rub) therefore privileged in what actions it can take around the world and the nation that can safely ignore international norms, which are created only for suckers. It is above the international law.

We create our own reality

The source of the term, which implicitly stresses that the USA stands outside international norms and treaties and can act as it please, is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

This is pretty precise definition of the idea of introduced by Nazi idea of “decisionism” in which action is seen as a value in itself. Decisionism is a defining feature of any totalitarian state. By extension if you find decisionism exists in particular state, it is rational to expect other F-features of such states. Umberto Eco has listed fourteen attributes along with two major features: irrationalism and decisionism. Eco has them listed as attributes 2 and 3.

The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Fascism has an irrational element that rejects modern thought because it conflicts with traditional beliefs of the Christian religion and because fascism views communist ideology as a child of the Age of Reason and Jewish intellectuals. The Nazis were well aware that Karl Marx was a German Jew. Evolution is seen as modernist and is rejected in favor of Christian creationism. This debate is repeating itself today in American society with Christian fundamentalism attempting to gain control of state education.

Very closely related to irrationalism is “decisionism” in which action is seen as a value in itself. This is an existential element in fascism that elevates action over thought. Action is a sign of unambiguous power, and thought is associated with weakness and indecision. Carl Schmitt, a Nazi Law constitutional jurist, wrote that a decision is “(an actual historical event) and not within that of a norm (an ahistoric and transcendent idea).” The a priori is overshadowed by the posteriori. Actions over abstract principles, Fact over Idea, Power over pure thought, Certainty over ambiguity are the values and ideological norms that are primary in a totalitarian state.

After fleeing Germany, Marcuse wrote in 1934 a critique of German fascist society and attempted to identify those beliefs and philosophical themes found within fascist ideology. Marcuse believed that the seeds of fascism could be found in the Capitalist Democratic Liberal State, which over time mutate as Monopoly Capitalism gain control of the State as in the case of Germany. The evolution of Capitalism is also the concealed dialectic of Fascism. Those mutated liberal democratic ideas and values are betrayed by a totalitarianism based on action and force.

Using Germany as his example of a fascist society Marcuse writes:

And within the political sphere all relationships are oriented in turn toward the most extreme “crisis,” toward the decision about the “state of emergency,” of war and peace. The true possessor of power is defined as beyond all legality and legitimacy: “Sovereign is he who decides on the state of emergency.” (Carl Schmitt, Politische Theologie,1922).

Sovereignty is founded on the factual power to make this decision (decisionism). The basic political relationship is the “friend-enemy relationship.” Its crisis is war, which proceeds until the enemy has been physically annihilated.

There is no social relationship that does not in a crisis turn into a political relationship. Behind all economic, social, religious, and cultural relations stands total politicization. There is no sphere of private or public life, no legal or rational court of appeal that could oppose it.
Negations, page 36.

From what social idea in Capitalistic Liberalism did this decisionism evolve? It is none other than the economic hero, the free independent entrepreneur of industrial capitalism.The idea of the charismatic, authoritarian leader is already preformed in the liberalist celebration of the gifted economic leader, the “born” executive. Negations, page 18.

The total-authoritarian state is born out of the Liberal state and the former concept of the economic leader is transformed into a Fuhrer. We can see this mutation of the concept of the “born” executive into the leader-state (Fuhrerstaat) in George Bush’s speech and actions.

An uneducated but privileged man, George Bush, has merged the idea of the CEO with that of the State Leader. But society has also made this same concatenation of ideas. He is a president of action and seen as a “strong” president. He is doer and not a thinker and his followers are proud of this persona. His opponents are “feminine” and members of the “reality based community.” Consequently, the Bush administration has attempted to engineer the executive branch to be the strongest in American history by claiming “inherent” presidential powers. It is precisely the concept of “state of emergency” that Bush has used to grab more and more state power in the name of security.

He has instituted the hyper-surveillance of Americas with the Patriot act, which is based on the same justification Nazi Law used to empower the Fuhrer. A Bush lawyer and advisor, John Yoo, wrote, Just two weeks after the September 11 attacks, a secret memo to White House counsel Alberto Gonzales’ office concluded that President Bush had the power to deploy military force “preemptively” against any terrorist groups or countries that supported them—regardless of whether they had any connection to the attacks on the World Trade Towers or the Pentagon. The memo, written by Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, argues that there are effectively “no limits” on the president’s authority to wage war—a sweeping assertion of executive power that some constitutional scholars say goes considerably beyond any that had previously been articulated by the department. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732484/site/newsweek/

Carl Schmitt, a Nazi Law constitutional jurist in Hitler’s Third Reich, wrote a similar justification of power for the State Leader using the concept of the “exception” in his work “Political Theology,” Hence, the thundering opening of his treatise: 'The sovereign is he who decides on the exception.' It is a disturbingly 'realistic' view of politics, which, in the manner of Hobbes, subordinates de jure authority to de facto power: autoritas, non veritas facit legem. (The law is made by the one who has authority (i.e. power) and not the one who possesses the truth (the legitimate sovereign).)

The problem of the exception, for the constitutional jurist Schmitt, can only be resolved within the framework of a decision (an actual historical event) and not within that of a norm (an ahistoric and transcendent idea). Moreover, the legal act which decides what constitutes an exception is 'a decision in the true sense of the word', because a general norm, an ordinary legal prescription, 'can never encompass a total exception'. If so, then, 'the decision that a real exception exists cannot be derived entirely from this norm.' The problem of the exception, in other words, demarcates the limit of the rule of law and opens up that trans-legal space, that no-man's land of existential exigency, which is bereft of legal authority and where the decision of the sovereign abrogates the anomaly of the legal void. …against the legal positivism of his times, Schmitt seems to be arguing that not law but the sovereign, not the legal text but the political will, is the supreme authority in a state. States are not legal entities but historical polities; they are engaged in a constant battle for survival where any moment of their existence may constitute an exception, it may engender a political crisis that cannot be remedied by the application of the rule of law. From the existential priority of the sovereign over the legitimacy of the norm, it would also follow that according to Schmitt, law is subservient to politics and not autonomous of it. The Sovereignty of the Political Carl Schmitt and the Nemesis of Liberalism http://www.algonet.se/~pmanzoor/CarlSchmitt.htm

When the Bush administration argues that increased presidential power is needed to fight terrorism by suspending or overriding the constitutional protections against search and seizures, they are arguing the principles of Nazi constitutional law. Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday vigorously defended the Bush administration's use of secret domestic spying and efforts to expand presidential powers, saying "it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years." Talking to reporters aboard his government plane as he flew from Islamabad, Pakistan to Muscat, Oman on an overseas mission, Cheney said a contraction in the power of the presidency since the Vietnam and Watergate era must be reversed. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it. And to some extent, that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK28B82.htmlAgainst these ever expanding powers of the State stand the once traditional individual freedoms upheld by the Liberal Democratic State. The theologian and philosopher of the Age of Reason, Immanuel Kant wrote…Human right must be kept sacred, no matter how great the sacrifice it costs the ruling powers. One cannot go only halfway and contrive a pragmatically conditioned right….All politics, rather, must bend the knee before sacred human right…

"Faith-based community" vs. Reality-based community

The same idea from slightly different angle is reflected in term "Faith-based community" vs. Reality-based community ( Wikipedia )

Reality-based community is a popular term among liberal political commentators in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community" was first used to suggest the commentator's opinions are based more on observation than on faith, assumption, or ideology. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from judicious study of discernible reality." Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[1]

Commentators who use this term generally oppose former President Bush's policies and by using this term imply that Bush's policies (and, by extension, those of the conservative movement generally) were (or are) out of touch with reality. Others use the term to draw a contrast with the perceived arrogance of the Bush Administration's unilateral policies, in accordance with the aide's quote. Its popularity has prompted some conservative commentators to use the term ironically, to accuse the left-leaning "reality-based community" of ignoring reality[2].

Imperial Outreach

The Republican Party — and more particularly the neo-con wing of the party — is particularly susceptible to imperial outreach. This imperial mentality is well exemplified by Fox News reporting.

For example, Matt Lewis, a conservative political Pundit on MSNBC attacked Barack Obama for saying “Any world order that elevates one nation above another will fall flat.” In response Lewis stated:

“I think that goes against the idea of American exceptionalism…most Americans believe that America was gifted by God and is a blessed nation and therefore we are better.”

For any conservative the concept of “American Exceptionalism” is rather bemusing. America is not more democratic, more free, more enterprising, more tolerant, or more anything else be it Canada, New Zealand or for that matter Australia. America is just a bigger country and due to its size, human resources and industrial potential it the leading Western country and the owner of world reserve currency, after Great Britain became financially exhausted after WWII. That means that American Exceptionalism is simply a politically correct work for a combustible mixture of nationalism (with Christian messianism component similar to Crusades with "democracy" instead Jesus) and Jingoism. In a very deep sense this is negation of the idea "all men are created equal" and as such is anti-American ;-).

America is a blessed nation as everybody in the country is an immigrant, the nation that at some point of time was freer and more prosperous than many others, but as a great Nazarene once said, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

sample:

BILL MOYERS:

Here is one of those neon sentences. Quote,

"The pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit. The chief desire of the American people," you write, "is that nothing should disrupt their access to these goods, that oil, and that credit. The chief aim of the U.S. government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part of through the distribution of largesse here at home, and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad."

In other words, you're saying that our foreign policy is the result of a dependence on consumer goods and credit.

ANDREW BACEVICH:

Our foreign policy is not something simply concocted by people in Washington D.C. and imposed on us. Our foreign policy is something that is concocted in Washington D.C., but it reflects the perceptions of our political elite about what we want, we the people want. And what we want, by and large - I mean, one could point to many individual exceptions - but, what we want, by and large is, we want this continuing flow of very cheap consumer goods.

We want to be able to pump gas into our cars regardless of how big they may happen to be, in order to be able to drive wherever we want to be able to drive. And we want to be able to do these things without having to think about whether or not the book's balanced at the end of the month, or the end of the fiscal year. And therefore, we want this unending line of credit.

Anti-Americanism as blowback of American exeptionalism

Quite logically the imperial actions is a source of widespread Anti-Americanism. As Ian Tyrrell noted in What is American exceptionalism

It is also important to realize that there is a “negative” version of exceptionalism, i.e. that the US has been exceptionally bad, racist, violent. While this is less a part of the common myths about American history, the attempt to compensate for American exceptionalism by emphasizing unique American evils is equally distorting. We need to think more about this matter, especially when we deal with racial divisions and gender prejudice. Is the US experience a variant on wider racial and gender patterns? While social history has provided new perspectives on the role of women, African Americans, and ethnics in the making of American history, has that new history discredited or qualified ideas of American exceptionalism?

The actual term “American exceptionalism” was originally coined by German Marxists who wished to explain why the US seemed to have by-passed the rise of socialism and Marxism. (Actually the US had much class conflict, some Marxist parties and theorists, and a lively socialist movement, though the latter was not on the scale of, say, France and Germany.) But exceptionalism is much more than about class conflict.

Some historians prefer the terms “differences” or “uniqueness?” Are these suitable substitutes? Whatever the terminology, the implications of American difference/uniqueness have long been debated. Some have said the difference was temporary, and eventually the US would be like other countries. Others have argued that American “specialness” stems from its political, intellectual, and even religious heritage, and is enduring.

Conclusions

Skeptic view on American Exceptionalism is valuable for different reasons some of which were listed by Stephen M. Walt in his The Myth of American Exceptionalism (Foreign Policy, November 2011)

The only thing wrong with this self-congratulatory portrait of America's global role is that it is mostly a myth. Although the United States possesses certain unique qualities -- from high levels of religiosity to a political culture that privileges individual freedom -- the conduct of U.S. foreign policy has been determined primarily by its relative power and by the inherently competitive nature of international politics. By focusing on their supposedly exceptional qualities, Americans blind themselves to the ways that they are a lot like everyone else.

This unchallenged faith in American exceptionalism makes it harder for Americans to understand why others are less enthusiastic about U.S. dominance, often alarmed by U.S. policies, and frequently irritated by what they see as U.S. hypocrisy, whether the subject is possession of nuclear weapons, conformity with international law, or America's tendency to condemn the conduct of others while ignoring its own failings. Ironically, U.S. foreign policy would probably be more effective if Americans were less convinced of their own unique virtues and less eager to proclaim them.

What we need, in short, is a more realistic and critical assessment of America's true character and contributions. In that spirit, I offer here the Top 5 Myths about American Exceptionalism.

Myth 1: There Is Something Exceptional About American Exceptionalism.

Whenever American leaders refer to the "unique" responsibilities of the United States, they are saying that it is different from other powers and that these differences require them to take on special burdens.

Yet there is nothing unusual about such lofty declarations; indeed, those who make them are treading a well-worn path. Most great powers have considered themselves superior to their rivals and have believed that they were advancing some greater good when they imposed their preferences on others. The British thought they were bearing the "white man's burden," while French colonialists invoked la mission civilisatrice to justify their empire. Portugal, whose imperial activities were hardly distinguished, believed it was promoting a certain missão civilizadora. Even many of the officials of the former Soviet Union genuinely believed they were leading the world toward a socialist utopia despite the many cruelties that communist rule inflicted. Of course, the United States has by far the better claim to virtue than Stalin or his successors, but Obama was right to remind us that all countries prize their own particular qualities.

So when Americans proclaim they are exceptional and indispensable, they are simply the latest nation to sing a familiar old song. Among great powers, thinking you're special is the norm, not the exception.

Myth 2: The United States Behaves Better Than Other Nations Do.

Declarations of American exceptionalism rest on the belief that the United States is a uniquely virtuous nation, one that loves peace, nurtures liberty, respects human rights, and embraces the rule of law. Americans like to think their country behaves much better than other states do, and certainly better than other great powers.

If only it were true. The United States may not have been as brutal as the worst states in world history, but a dispassionate look at the historical record belies most claims about America's moral superiority.

For starters, the United States has been one of the most expansionist powers in modern history. It began as 13 small colonies clinging to the Eastern Seaboard, but eventually expanded across North America, seizing Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California from Mexico in 1846. Along the way, it eliminated most of the native population and confined the survivors to impoverished reservations. By the mid-19th century, it had pushed Britain out of the Pacific Northwest and consolidated its hegemony over the Western Hemisphere.

The United States has fought numerous wars since then -- starting several of them -- and its wartime conduct has hardly been a model of restraint. The 1899-1902 conquest of the Philippines killed some 200,000 to 400,000 Filipinos, most of them civilians, and the United States and its allies did not hesitate to dispatch some 305,000 German and 330,000 Japanese civilians through aerial bombing during World War II, mostly through deliberate campaigns against enemy cities. No wonder Gen. Curtis LeMay, who directed the bombing campaign against Japan, told an aide, "If the U.S. lost the war, we would be prosecuted as war criminals." The United States dropped more than 6 million tons of bombs during the Indochina war, including tons of napalm and lethal defoliants like Agent Orange, and it is directly responsible for the deaths of many of the roughly 1 million civilians who died in that war.

More recently, the U.S.-backed Contra war in Nicaragua killed some 30,000 Nicaraguans, a percentage of their population equivalent to 2 million dead Americans. U.S. military action has led directly or indirectly to the deaths of 250,000 Muslims over the past three decades (and that's a low-end estimate, not counting the deaths resulting from the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s), including the more than 100,000 people who died following the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. U.S. drones and Special Forces are going after suspected terrorists in at least five countries at present and have killed an unknown number of innocent civilians in the process. Some of these actions may have been necessary to make Americans more prosperous and secure. But while Americans would undoubtedly regard such acts as indefensible if some foreign country were doing them to us, hardly any U.S. politicians have questioned these policies. Instead, Americans still wonder, "Why do they hate us?"

The United States talks a good game on human rights and international law, but it has refused to sign most human rights treaties, is not a party to the International Criminal Court, and has been all too willing to cozy up to dictators -- remember our friend Hosni Mubarak? -- with abysmal human rights records. If that were not enough, the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the George W. Bush administration's reliance on waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, and preventive detention should shake America's belief that it consistently acts in a morally superior fashion. Obama's decision to retain many of these policies suggests they were not a temporary aberration.

The United States never conquered a vast overseas empire or caused millions to die through tyrannical blunders like China's Great Leap Forward or Stalin's forced collectivization. And given the vast power at its disposal for much of the past century, Washington could certainly have done much worse. But the record is clear: U.S. leaders have done what they thought they had to do when confronted by external dangers, and they paid scant attention to moral principles along the way. The idea that the United States is uniquely virtuous may be comforting to Americans; too bad it's not true.

Myth 3: America's Success Is Due to Its Special Genius.

The United States has enjoyed remarkable success, and Americans tend to portray their rise to world power as a direct result of the political foresight of the Founding Fathers, the virtues of the U.S. Constitution, the priority placed on individual liberty, and the creativity and hard work of the American people. In this narrative, the United States enjoys an exceptional global position today because it is, well, exceptional.

There is more than a grain of truth to this version of American history. It's not an accident that immigrants came to America in droves in search of economic opportunity, and the "melting pot" myth facilitated the assimilation of each wave of new Americans. America's scientific and technological achievements are fully deserving of praise and owe something to the openness and vitality of the American political order.

But America's past success is due as much to good luck as to any uniquely American virtues. The new nation was lucky that the continent was lavishly endowed with natural resources and traversed by navigable rivers. It was lucky to have been founded far from the other great powers and even luckier that the native population was less advanced and highly susceptible to European diseases. Americans were fortunate that the European great powers were at war for much of the republic's early history, which greatly facilitated its expansion across the continent, and its global primacy was ensured after the other great powers fought two devastating world wars. This account of America's rise does not deny that the United States did many things right, but it also acknowledges that America's present position owes as much to good fortune as to any special genius or "manifest destiny."

Myth 4: The United States Is Responsible for Most of the Good in the World.

Americans are fond of giving themselves credit for positive international developments. President Bill Clinton believed the United States was "indispensable to the forging of stable political relations," and the late Harvard University political scientist Samuel P. Huntington thought U.S. primacy was central "to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies, and international order in the world." Journalist Michael Hirsh has gone even further, writing in his book At War With Ourselves that America's global role is "the greatest gift the world has received in many, many centuries, possibly all of recorded history." Scholarly works such as Tony Smith's America's Mission and G. John Ikenberry's Liberal Leviathan emphasize America's contribution to the spread of democracy and its promotion of a supposedly liberal world order. Given all the high-fives American leaders have given themselves, it is hardly surprising that most Americans see their country as an overwhelmingly positive force in world affairs.

Once again, there is something to this line of argument, just not enough to make it entirely accurate. The United States has made undeniable contributions to peace and stability in the world over the past century, including the Marshall Plan, the creation and management of the Bretton Woods system, its rhetorical support for the core principles of democracy and human rights, and its mostly stabilizing military presence in Europe and the Far East. But the belief that all good things flow from Washington's wisdom overstates the U.S. contribution by a wide margin.

For starters, though Americans watching Saving Private Ryan or Patton may conclude that the United States played the central role in vanquishing Nazi Germany, most of the fighting was in Eastern Europe and the main burden of defeating Hitler's war machine was borne by the Soviet Union. Similarly, though the Marshall Plan and NATO played important roles in Europe's post-World War II success, Europeans deserve at least as much credit for rebuilding their economies, constructing a novel economic and political union, and moving beyond four centuries of sometimes bitter rivalry. Americans also tend to think they won the Cold War all by themselves, a view that ignores the contributions of other anti-Soviet adversaries and the courageous dissidents whose resistance to communist rule produced the "velvet revolutions" of 1989.

Moreover, as Godfrey Hodgson recently noted in his sympathetic but clear-eyed book, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, the spread of liberal ideals is a global phenomenon with roots in the Enlightenment, and European philosophers and political leaders did much to advance the democratic ideal. Similarly, the abolition of slavery and the long effort to improve the status of women owe more to Britain and other democracies than to the United States, where progress in both areas trailed many other countries. Nor can the United States claim a global leadership role today on gay rights, criminal justice, or economic equality -- Europe's got those areas covered.

Finally, any honest accounting of the past half-century must acknowledge the downside of American primacy. The United States has been the major producer of greenhouse gases for most of the last hundred years and thus a principal cause of the adverse changes that are altering the global environment. The United States stood on the wrong side of the long struggle against apartheid in South Africa and backed plenty of unsavory dictatorships -- including Saddam Hussein's -- when short-term strategic interests dictated. Americans may be justly proud of their role in creating and defending Israel and in combating global anti-Semitism, but its one-sided policies have also prolonged Palestinian statelessness and sustained Israel's brutal occupation.

Bottom line: Americans take too much credit for global progress and accept too little blame for areas where U.S. policy has in fact been counterproductive. Americans are blind to their weak spots, and in ways that have real-world consequences. Remember when Pentagon planners thought U.S. troops would be greeted in Baghdad with flowers and parades? They mostly got RPGs and IEDs instead.

Myth 5: God Is on Our Side.

A crucial component of American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States has a divinely ordained mission to lead the rest of the world. Ronald Reagan told audiences that there was "some divine plan" that had placed America here, and once quoted Pope Pius XII saying, "Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind." Bush offered a similar view in 2004, saying, "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom." The same idea was expressed, albeit less nobly, in Otto von Bismarck's alleged quip that "God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States."

Confidence is a valuable commodity for any country. But when a nation starts to think it enjoys the mandate of heaven and becomes convinced that it cannot fail or be led astray by scoundrels or incompetents, then reality is likely to deliver a swift rebuke. Ancient Athens, Napoleonic France, imperial Japan, and countless other countries have succumbed to this sort of hubris, and nearly always with catastrophic results.

Despite America's many successes, the country is hardly immune from setbacks, follies, and boneheaded blunders. If you have any doubts about that, just reflect on how a decade of ill-advised tax cuts, two costly and unsuccessful wars, and a financial meltdown driven mostly by greed and corruption have managed to squander the privileged position the United States enjoyed at the end of the 20th century. Instead of assuming that God is on their side, perhaps Americans should heed Abraham Lincoln's admonition that our greatest concern should be "whether we are on God's side."

Given the many challenges Americans now face, from persistent unemployment to the burden of winding down two deadly wars, it's unsurprising that they find the idea of their own exceptionalism comforting -- and that their aspiring political leaders have been proclaiming it with increasing fervor. Such patriotism has its benefits, but not when it leads to a basic misunderstanding of America's role in the world. This is exactly how bad decisions get made.

America has its own special qualities, as all countries do, but it is still a state embedded in a competitive global system. It is far stronger and richer than most, and its geopolitical position is remarkably favorable. These advantages give the United States a wider range of choice in its conduct of foreign affairs, but they don't ensure that its choices will be good ones. Far from being a unique state whose behavior is radically different from that of other great powers, the United States has behaved like all the rest, pursuing its own self-interest first and foremost, seeking to improve its relative position over time, and devoting relatively little blood or treasure to purely idealistic pursuits. Yet, just like past great powers, it has convinced itself that it is different, and better, than everyone else.

International politics is a contact sport, and even powerful states must compromise their political principles for the sake of security and prosperity. Nationalism is also a powerful force, and it inevitably highlights the country's virtues and sugarcoats its less savory aspects.

But if Americans want to be truly exceptional, they might start by viewing the whole idea of "American exceptionalism" with a much more skeptical eye.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News

Home 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Sep 23, 2018] Darwin's Vigilantes, Reichard Sternberg, and Conventional Pseudoscience by Fred Reed

Notable quotes:
"... Nice chimp. Speaking of chimps here's some fun facts chimps and humans are, as their genes differ by just 1.6%, whereas chimps and gorillas differ by 2.3%. Also, chimps are known to be very territorial and violent. Ring a bell? ..."
"... How do you escape the infinite loop that arises automatically from the concept of an intelligent designer? i.e., Who, or what, designed the intelligent designer? ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

bossel , says: September 22, 2018 at 9:04 pm GMT

"Irreducible complexity" is complete bullshit. & since this been shown to you numerous times by a number of people it has to be concluded that you actually don't care about probabilities & facts. So, it's pretty useless trying to discuss with you.

Orgel's second rule applies.

Dana Thompson , says: September 23, 2018 at 2:14 am GMT
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." – this statement by Sherlock Holmes is the foundational doctrine of modern biology, not anything that Darwin said.

God is impossible, therefore no intellectual contortion to rationalize the theory of evolution is too extreme.

Biff , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:25 am GMT
@Rurik
We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans.
how life got here in the first place is speculation. No one knows for sure, no one I know of pretends to.
Do we know of what those oceans consisted?
They could have been boiling acids and lava that sleestacks were using as breeding ponds, and perhaps some of their juices got lodged in a volcanic plume, and eventually descended back to earth, to seed the planet with its first 'indigenous' life form.

Can we categorically dismiss this theory as impossible? No, we can not.

But how life got here, is an entirely different conversation than whether or not evolution happens.

Clue: it does.

Simply consider the Neanderthal. We know he existed. We have his bones and caves.

But where is he today?

Exactly.

Survival of the fittest. When sleestacks one day return to Earth, and find that among the throngs of waddling bipedals that evolved from their original seed, there are no more of the pale versions left, that will be because their will to persevere could not prevail over the treacherous, near infinite venality of some of their members.

And btw, while I consider it arrogant for anyone, either a religious zealot or someone posing as a 'scientist'.. to pretend to know how life got here..

..it's just as presumptuous, arrogant, dogmatic and closed-minded - to presume to know that it was put here by ID.

We can't know how life got here, but that certainly doesn't mean that it necessarily was put here by a purposeful "intelligent design'. That's just more of the kind of arrogant certainty that most religions display and yes, some of those claiming to be 'scientists' as well.

Science can't 'know' anything that can't be put to the test or experiment. And since it's rather (at this time anyways) impossible to reconstruct the earth's environment four billions or so years ago, (sleestacks notwithstanding), we can't know such things. All they can do is speculate based on what they can know; with experimentation.

But evolution is happening right before your eyes, man.

The dodo bird is no more. Tigers and elephants and rhinos and thousands of other species are being whipped out in our lifetimes, to make more and more room for bipedal consumer units / tax slaves / cannon fodder. As those other species become extinct, it will be due to realities on the ground. Literally in most cases, as their habitats are taken over by a competing species.

This is all brutally obvious once you set aside your prejudices and vanity.

Often, the resistance to the idea of evolution, is a resistance to the idea that we are related to the lesser apes.

Human vanity is often viscerally repulsed by this idea. But wishing it wasn't so, doesn't make it go away.

http://i.pbase.com/g3/32/803532/2/99237234.fDbi3ga9.jpg

Nice chimp. Speaking of chimps here's some fun facts chimps and humans are, as their genes differ by just 1.6%, whereas chimps and gorillas differ by 2.3%. Also, chimps are known to be very territorial and violent. Ring a bell?

Wizard of Oz , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:42 am GMT
Fred, after all these years thinking you were sane and smart as well as amusing I have to wonder because you keep on about some imagined Darwinism and avoid the key concept of natural selection whereby some variants of the living DNA bundles turn out to be more fertile than others in the given circumstances. That's as near as you can get to having a logically necessary explanation for something we observe.

Then you still want a place for a designer! Well make sense of that if you can.

What do his/her/its designs tell you about the designer except that he/she isn't any of the candidates yet invented? At least you could infer something about the Abrahamic chap, namely that YHWH didn't like the Hebrews very much even if he was sorry that he had created the other lot at all.

advancedatheist , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:31 am GMT
Ironically intelligent design theorists have conceded more to philosophical materialists than they realize. Philosophers since Descartes have argued that biology and machines operate according to the same principles. ID people just differ from Darwinian materialists about how biological machines came about; but they think about biology like materialists just the same.

I don't see what all this mental masturbation has to do with Christianity, however, because no Christian believes that machines have immaterial things in them which survive the machines' destruction and exist forever in another realm.

Logan , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:36 am GMT
@Dana Thompson

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." - this statement by Sherlock Holmes is the foundational doctrine of modern biology, not anything that Darwin said. God is impossible, therefore no intellectual contortion to rationalize the theory of evolution is too extreme.

The Holmes quote is a fallacy. It assumes you have assembled all possibilities and that your analysis of their impossibility is without error.

In reality neither of these is usually the case.

jilles dykstra , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:26 am GMT
Hoyle's theory is that life is anywhere in the universe, that it begins in the universe, at the lowest possible temperature, under fierce ultraviolet radiation
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 'Life on Mars ?, The case for a Cosmic Heritage ?', Bristol 1997
Both chemical analysis done by Japanese on a comet, and by Philea, seem to support the theory, until now.
Then there is the phenomenon that genetic material stores experience.
Mice that had been trained to fear a certain smell transmitted this fear by sperm.
Fish accidentally getting into a mid African lake changed at a speed that flabbergasted biologists.
So, I'm inclined to think that life is anywhere in the universe, and that changes in species, the word evolution to me seems to be Darwin's concession to christian thought, homo sapiens as the highest, whatever that may be, are not random, but occur on purpose.
How this mechanism functions, if it exists, it will take some time before we find out.

Latin Americans nor were, nor are, stupid.
When Pizarro saw Mexico city, he was flabbergasted.
Nowhere in Europe at the time existed so large a city, so clean, and so well organised.
Medieval European cities at the time were dung heaps.
The ground level of the Dutch city of Dordrecht rose seven metres trough throwing all garbage in the streets.
Roman cities were well organised, sewers and clean water.
Christianity saw the body as evil, so washing was not important.
As a result epidemics.

A very interesting book is
Lynn White Jr., 'Medieval Technology and Social Change', Oxford 1962
The role of iron in history is hardly realised.
S America, Africa, and the Middle East hardly had any iron.
In England it was found galore, near coal, with easy transport over water.
Mines needed water pumps, a coal driven pump was the beginning of the steam engine, the industrial revolution could begin.

The Alarmist , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT
Some of y'all miss the point that Fred is not denying that evolution of species is at play, merely that the path back to the ur-origin is not readily explained by the theory. That is a fair statement.
j2 , says: September 23, 2018 at 8:15 am GMT
Fred, thanks for this article. You are again totally correct concerning Darwinism. People who have not though about it deep enough confuse darwinism with evolution. Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism as you call the present evolution theory, is a proposed explanation of evolution. Evolution happens, the given explanation does not need to be correct. There are indeed many serious gaps and problems in all forms of darwinism.

The birth of life from non-life is an open problem. I looked at a simpler problem, how new clearly different protein-coding parts of a gene (i.e., differs by many mutations) can be created by mutations and selection.

The problem was that a protein stops working after very few random mutations, so it must become duplicated and a duplicate becomes a pseudo-gene that accumulates many mutations, but as it is pseudo-gene it is not under selection pressure, so this mutation-selection mechanism cannot work. It can make new alleles, i.e., genes differing by a few mutations only, and screen the best by selection. In that case the mutated gene does not need to become pseudo-gene (=gene that does not work).

AlreadyPublished , says: September 23, 2018 at 9:23 am GMT
How do you escape the infinite loop that arises automatically from the concept of an intelligent designer?
i.e., Who, or what, designed the intelligent designer?

Did it evolve here on Earth, somewhere else, or arise spontaneously in opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Does the concept of "information" have any meaning without the evolution of an analytical organism with an abstraction engine?

Do we even know what we think evolved? No

This question conflates knowledge with conjecture, hypothesis and/or theory, depending on what definition you choose for the word "think". But let me try to answer it anyway .
Yes – we do have some ideas about what first evolved , some backed with physical evidence.
The2nd law of thermodynamics defines an arrow of time for the universe in terms of entropy, which means that the past grows increasingly fuzzy the further we try to look backwards. This limitation on certainty is something we know and must accept. Human history is a tiny fragment of the Earth's history, but only a mote of that fragment can be reconstructed with much certainty, hence the difference between "pre-history" and "history".

So what kind of organism do we think (hypothesize) first evolved? The answer is .
gas-guzzling microbes:

Beating the acetyl coenzyme A-pathway to the origin of life
(Published 10 June 2013)
Wolfgang Nitschke and Michael J. Russell
[...]
Abstract

Attempts to draft plausible scenarios for the origin of life have in the past mainly built upon palaeogeochemical boundary conditions while, as detailed in a companion article in this issue, frequently neglecting to comply with fundamental thermodynamic laws . Even if demands from both palaeogeochemistry and thermodynamics are respected, then a plethora of strongly differing models are still conceivable.
Although we have no guarantee that life at its origin necessarily resembled biology in extant organisms, we consider that the only empirical way to deduce how life may have emerged is by taking the stance of assuming continuity of biology from its inception to the present day . Building upon this conviction, we have assessed extant types of energy and carbon metabolism for their appropriateness to conditions probably pertaining in those settings of the Hadean planet that fulfill the thermodynamic requirements for life to come into being. Wood–Ljungdahl (WL) pathways leading to acetyl CoA formation are excellent candidates for such primordial metabolism.

Based on a review of our present understanding of the biochemistry and biophysics of acetogenic, methanogenic and methanotrophic pathways and on a phylogenetic analysis of involved enzymes, we propose that a variant of modern methanotrophy is more likely than traditional WL systems to date back to the origin of life . The proposed model furthermore better fits basic thermodynamic demands and palaeogeochemical conditions suggested by recent results from extant alkaline hydrothermal seeps.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120258.abstract

Actually, I built a webpage around the idea that life arose from petroleum, and not vice versa:

http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/

My crude idea is actually supported by oceans of living evidence. See for yourself.

utu , says: September 23, 2018 at 9:30 am GMT
The problem with the ToE is that it is de facto tautological so there is no means of falsification. Thus it is a dogma that any living organism that exists is the outcome of evolutionary process. There is no other possibility. So all the stories that can be told about this organism must a priori be framed within the ToE. The ToE has no predictive ability. We must resign ourselves to accept any outcome because whatever will evolve had to evolve. We can only construct a posteriori stories that justify the outcome. The stories are no different from the just-so stories except that Kipling had sense of humor while evolutionsts take themselves dead seriously. Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism. This is not necessarily overtly acknowledged but it is implied. The veracity of the stories is usually unprovable in the sense of rigorous proofs available in other branches of science. It is unimaginable that any evidence could derail or even put a dent in the ToE. For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it.
m___ , says: September 23, 2018 at 10:34 am GMT
No, Neo-Darwinism does not allow for replication experiments. Thus one could suggest it is an abstract idea, a suggestion, no more.

That points to other thoughts, how does Neo-Darwinism scale as to the Bible, the Koran. Very well. How does Neo-Darwinism not allow for different suggestions to be judged only afterwards on their quality? It should allow for further suggestions at all means. Is intelligent design a better suggestion? Should scientists be discriminated upon being critical of Neo-Darwinism? Certainly not.

Meaningful article as to mainstream openness of mind elaboration.

Steve Hayes , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 11:31 am GMT
Bringing up the origin of life on Earth is a logical fallacy and, as such, completely disingenuous. The theory of evolution does not say anything about how life arose. Its focus is on how species change over time, and the evidence for this is overwhelming.
DanFromCT , says: September 23, 2018 at 11:50 am GMT
@AlreadyPublished How do you escape the infinite loop that arises automatically from the concept of an intelligent designer?
i.e., Who, or what, designed the intelligent designer?
Did it evolve here on Earth, somewhere else, or arise spontaneously in opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Does the concept of "information" have any meaning without the evolution of an analytical organism with an abstraction engine?

Do we even know what we think evolved? No
This question conflates knowledge with conjecture, hypothesis and/or theory, depending on what definition you choose for the word "think". But let me try to answer it anyway....
Yes - we do have some ideas about what first evolved , some backed with physical evidence.
The2nd law of thermodynamics defines an arrow of time for the universe in terms of entropy, which means that the past grows increasingly fuzzy the further we try to look backwards. This limitation on certainty is something we know and must accept. Human history is a tiny fragment of the Earth's history, but only a mote of that fragment can be reconstructed with much certainty, hence the difference between "pre-history" and "history".

So what kind of organism do we think (hypothesize) first evolved? The answer is....
gas-guzzling microbes:


Beating the acetyl coenzyme A-pathway to the origin of life
(Published 10 June 2013)
Wolfgang Nitschke and Michael J. Russell
[...]
Abstract

Attempts to draft plausible scenarios for the origin of life have in the past mainly built upon palaeogeochemical boundary conditions while, as detailed in a companion article in this issue, frequently neglecting to comply with fundamental thermodynamic laws . Even if demands from both palaeogeochemistry and thermodynamics are respected, then a plethora of strongly differing models are still conceivable.
Although we have no guarantee that life at its origin necessarily resembled biology in extant organisms, we consider that the only empirical way to deduce how life may have emerged is by taking the stance of assuming continuity of biology from its inception to the present day . Building upon this conviction, we have assessed extant types of energy and carbon metabolism for their appropriateness to conditions probably pertaining in those settings of the Hadean planet that fulfill the thermodynamic requirements for life to come into being. Wood–Ljungdahl (WL) pathways leading to acetyl CoA formation are excellent candidates for such primordial metabolism.

Based on a review of our present understanding of the biochemistry and biophysics of acetogenic, methanogenic and methanotrophic pathways and on a phylogenetic analysis of involved enzymes, we propose that a variant of modern methanotrophy is more likely than traditional WL systems to date back to the origin of life . The proposed model furthermore better fits basic thermodynamic demands and palaeogeochemical conditions suggested by recent results from extant alkaline hydrothermal seeps.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1622/20120258.abstract

Actually, I built a webpage around the idea that life arose from petroleum, and not vice versa:
http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/
My crude idea is actually supported by oceans of living evidence. See for yourself. Compare with the talk by Rice University synthetic chemist James Tour, "Are Present Proposals on Chemical Evolutionary Mechanisms Accurately Pointing Toward First Life?" which utterly demolishes Darwinian fairy tales about the origin of life as told by militant atheists.

The irrelevant ad hominems are always the first sign we've won on the merits of our case. Beyond that what they're demanding in the name of "but this is science!" turns out to be methodological just so-ism, a form of quasi-religious anti-science in which literally everything confirms Darwinism on the grounds that Darwinism explains everything.

The irony about the bluster coming from these rabid Darwinians is that a quick check of their photos shows they're almost always angry, emasculated little men, who if there were any truth in Darwinism might be kept under lock and key to perform some useful work but othwrwise excluded from the affairs of real men. This much should be obvious, so the real question becomes who are behind the publishing and media platforms allowing these social misfits to abuse science for socio-political reasons.

After all, even if they're atheists as almost all are, they would concede that the notion of God is the culturally collective conscience of a people -- proving the hatred expressing itself in these scurrilous ad hominems exposes an embarrassing grandiosity characteristic of a paranoid hatred of their male betters in general and of Christian Americans in particular.

utu , says: September 23, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT
@utu The problem with the ToE is that it is de facto tautological so there is no means of falsification. Thus it is a dogma that any living organism that exists is the outcome of evolutionary process. There is no other possibility. So all the stories that can be told about this organism must a priori be framed within the ToE. The ToE has no predictive ability. We must resign ourselves to accept any outcome because whatever will evolve had to evolve. We can only construct a posteriori stories that justify the outcome. The stories are no different from the just-so stories except that Kipling had sense of humor while evolutionsts take themselves dead seriously. Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism. This is not necessarily overtly acknowledged but it is implied. The veracity of the stories is usually unprovable in the sense of rigorous proofs available in other branches of science. It is unimaginable that any evidence could derail or even put a dent in the ToE. For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it. Jerry Fodor on evolutionary (just-so) stories in psychology, behavioral science and so on.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings

The years after Darwin witnessed a remarkable proliferation of other theories, each seeking to co-opt natural selection for purposes of its own. Evolutionary psychology is currently the salient instance, but examples have been legion. They're to be found in more or less all of the behavioural sciences, to say nothing of epistemology, semantics, theology, the philosophy of history, ethics, sociology, political theory, eugenics and even aesthetics. What they have in common is that they attempt to explain why we are so-and-so by reference to what being so-and-so buys for us, or what it would have bought for our ancestors.

'We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.'

'We don't approve of eating grandmother because having her around to baby-sit was useful in the hunter-gatherer ecology.'

'We like music because singing together strengthened the bond between the hunters and the gatherers (and/or between the hunter-gatherer grownups and their hunter-gatherer offspring)'.

'We talk by making noises and not by waving our hands; that's because hunter-gatherers lived in the savannah and would have had trouble seeing one another in the tall grass.'

'We like to gossip because knowing who has been up to what is important when fitness depends on co-operation in small communities.'

'We don't all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).'

'We don't copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).'

I'm not making this up, by the way. Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that's the sort of creature we are. And perhaps it's unnecessary to remark that such explanations are inherently post hoc (Gould called them 'just so stories'); or that, except for the prestige they borrow from the theory of natural selection, there isn't much reason to believe that any of them is true.

Anyhow, for what it's worth, I really would be surprised to find out that I was meant to be a hunter-gatherer since I don't feel the slightest nostalgia for that sort of life. I loathe the very idea of hunting, and I'm not all that keen on gathering either. Nor can I believe that living like a hunter-gatherer would make me happier or better. In fact, it sounds to me like absolute hell. No opera. And no plumbing.

j2 , says: September 23, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
@utu

If a physicist at CalTech expressed doubts about general relativity, he would certainly be challenged to prove his theory. He would not be hounded, belittled, forced to resign, charged with pseudoscience, and banned from publication.
You are wrong. He would get the same treatment as anti Darwinists and and top of it it would be insinuate that he was an anti Semite. Challenging Einstein is a big no no and grave sin. utu, you are completely right, I can tell it from personal experience, though not in Caltech, but it is the same in all respectable (thinking they are better) universities, I have been staff in two such.
AlreadyPublished , says: September 23, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
@tom Fred
Quite correct. The essential darwinism and neo darwinism notions are based on a long time and incredible random mutations. A belief in a non-darwinistic view of how biological entites emerged suggests some type of teleology whether deistic or otherwise. This is absolutely unacceptable to darwinists. Modern evolutionary biology would rather believe in a random tooth fairy rather than teleology. They have the simplistic dualism that if you don't accept the darwinism nonsense you must be a creationist fruitcake. End of discussion. There are two ways to address a mystery: as a detective or as a mystic.

Darwinian evolution is the product of detective work, whereas teleology and religion are the products of mystics. Mystics don't want mysteries solved , because they make a living from promoting ignorance as something important and valuable, worthy of awe, amazement, and worship rituals (including endless streams of money to sustain the parasitic priestly caste)

Detectives want to solve mysteries because they want to understand causation.
If you understand how something works, you no longer have a mystery.

But a mystical life is contingent on the existence of a mystery. Mystics need mystery, and will preserve it at all costs. That's why they hate Darwinian evolution, opposing it since 1859, despite all the oceans, mountains and forests filled with convergent evidence in support of the 2nd most successful theory in science .

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 1:47 pm GMT
@DH

Irreducible complexity" is complete bullshit. & since this been shown to you numerous times by a number of people
Links please...

Links please

WTF? Are you in kindergarten? Just stupid? Just one who prefers ignorance and denial? "Irreducible complexity" has been quite adequately rebutted by competent scientists. If you don't know how to use the Internet, put some effort into learning. Do your own goddamn due diligence, asshole. Do you always require other people to do the work? And then you believe what you get back? Get the fuck to work, clown.

AaronB , says: September 23, 2018 at 2:31 pm GMT
Intelligent Design must be viewed with hostility by the scientific establishment.

Science is supposed to give humans control – if Intelligent Design is true, it would mean there are other forces at work in the universe, humans must share power, humans have less control than they thought.

That goes against the whole Point of Science.

Intelligent Design is a dead theory from the pov of science – if true, now what? How does that add to our power to shape our destiny? We just submit to a higher power?

Evolutionary Theory has resulted in an actual sense of increased power for us – we apply it in male/female relations, we apply it to population differences, we understand human behavior and motivation through its prism.

It hardly matters that all of this is false – that it cannot explain male/female relations or population differences. It hardly matters that it gives us a false sense of power.

Science must prefer it. Only another theory that offers more power than Evolution will be even remotely considered.

Intelligent Design cancels out science, neuters it, destroys it – it is not just another scientific theory.

How can Intelligent Design give us more power?

Mankind seems to need security more than anything. Our primary motivation seems to be fear.

Johnnie Walker Read , says: September 23, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT
@Rurik

We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans.
how life got here in the first place is speculation. No one knows for sure, no one I know of pretends to.

Do we know of what those oceans consisted?
They could have been boiling acids and lava that sleestacks were using as breeding ponds, and perhaps some of their juices got lodged in a volcanic plume, and eventually descended back to earth, to seed the planet with its first 'indigenous' life form.

Can we categorically dismiss this theory as impossible? No, we can not.

But how life got here, is an entirely different conversation than whether or not evolution happens.

Clue: it does.

Simply consider the Neanderthal. We know he existed. We have his bones and caves.

But where is he today?

Exactly.

Survival of the fittest. When sleestacks one day return to Earth, and find that among the throngs of waddling bipedals that evolved from their original seed, there are no more of the pale versions left, that will be because their will to persevere could not prevail over the treacherous, near infinite venality of some of their members.

And btw, while I consider it arrogant for anyone, either a religious zealot or someone posing as a 'scientist'.. to pretend to know how life got here..

..it's just as presumptuous, arrogant, dogmatic and closed-minded - to presume to know that it was put here by ID.

We can't know how life got here, but that certainly doesn't mean that it necessarily was put here by a purposeful "intelligent design'. That's just more of the kind of arrogant certainty that most religions display and yes, some of those claiming to be 'scientists' as well.

Science can't 'know' anything that can't be put to the test or experiment. And since it's rather (at this time anyways) impossible to reconstruct the earth's environment four billions or so years ago, (sleestacks notwithstanding), we can't know such things. All they can do is speculate based on what they can know; with experimentation.

But evolution is happening right before your eyes, man.

The dodo bird is no more. Tigers and elephants and rhinos and thousands of other species are being whipped out in our lifetimes, to make more and more room for bipedal consumer units / tax slaves / cannon fodder. As those other species become extinct, it will be due to realities on the ground. Literally in most cases, as their habitats are taken over by a competing species.

This is all brutally obvious once you set aside your prejudices and vanity.

Often, the resistance to the idea of evolution, is a resistance to the idea that we are related to the lesser apes.

Human vanity is often viscerally repulsed by this idea. But wishing it wasn't so, doesn't make it go away.

http://i.pbase.com/g3/32/803532/2/99237234.fDbi3ga9.jpg The best theory I have heard on the evolution of man. As Lloyd Pye points out, Darwin "was a blowed up peckerwood".

nsa , says: September 23, 2018 at 2:42 pm GMT
There is a fairly decent fossil record of human evolution. "The Fossil Trail" by Tattersall provides an overview of this fossil record. Note that fossils are not bones but rather mineralized bones, and can only form within a very narrow set of conditions. Actual bones rarely last a month or two in nature .let alone millions of years.
for-the-record , says: September 23, 2018 at 3:40 pm GMT
I think its fair to say that there are 3 essential, and largely independent, elements to "the" theory of evolution:

(1) the origin of life (out of primordial soup), which for some miraculous, unexplained reason happened exactly 1 time

(2) arrival of the fittest (i.e., how favorable mutations produce wonderful changes and entirely new species)

(3) survival of the fittest (natural selection, e.g., white moths becoming black during the industrial revolution)

For anyone with a strong feel for mathematics, the last (which most people seem to identify with "evolution") is entirely trivial; the first two, on the other hand are, as Fred points out, highly problematic.

Pasteur, after all, is heralded for having refuted the "traditional" theory of spontaneous generation, but it seems that in the primordial soup normal rules don't apply.

log , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMT
Dear Mr. Reed,

Darwinism begins with the twin assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. These are assumptions, and they cannot be proven by the nature of their claims. From these assumptions, Darwinism, or something functionally identical to it, must be true as a matter of logical deduction from observational reality. As one of its proponents put it, Darwinism "is the only game in town." This is so because of these two assumptions, which are not value neutral.

These two assumptions – naturalism (there exists nought but particles, forces, and the void) and uniformitarianism (the rules that we deduce govern the interaction of matter have been, are, and always shall be, the same everywhere) – are the philosophical foundation upon which all of scientific modernity is built. This philosophical foundation rules out any deity who might make a difference in observational reality.

Design theory (aka "Intelligent Design") is simply the consistent application of statistical rationality to claims. When applied to the claims of evolutionary biology, statistics concludes that "it most likely didn't happen the way it must have if naturalism and uniformitarianism are true." By its nature, however, statistics can't make absolute claims, but only comparative claims of likelihoods. Thus statistics cannot disprove the joint combination of naturalism and uniformitarianism. It can only undermine it. And that undermining – the parting of mind and heart – creates madness for those whose philosophies are built upon the foundation of naturalism and uniformitarianism. But also rejecting statistics is to depart from that foundation as well, which also is madness.

Therefore those who use statistics to test the claims of evolutionary biology against observational reality must be done away with, using the time-honored methods of ostracism, reviling, deplatforming, and so on. Their claims cannot be refuted without abandoning statistical rationality, which is self-defeating. So their claims must not be substantively addressed. Pointing fingers and mocking will suffice, for who wants to be mocked and scorned? Is the pursuit of truth worth the social cost it incurs?

But consider – if statistics does undermine confidence in Darwinism, and if Darwinism is entailed by the joint combination of naturalism, uniformitarianism, and observational reality – then what is really being undermined is the joint combination of naturalism and uniformitarianism. And if there might exist more than simply particles, forces, and the void, and if the rules governing the interactions of matter are not uniform across reality, then we have no grounds for saying the Bible presents a false view of reality. There may indeed be a God who does things we can observe, a God of miracles, and Jesus Christ may indeed be real. The prospect of living forever in their society cannot be rejected on first principles if we are statistically rational, and so that prospect might cause us to revise our cost estimate of the pursuit of truth – and a great many other things.

Jared Livesey

WorkingClass , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT
Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours. To a cockroach I am a vengeful god.
Intelligent Dasein , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 4:31 pm GMT
When reading the Origin of Species, one is impressed by the fact that Darwin himself comes across as very genteel individual, as someone largely free of any tendencies towards bitterness, ambition, or acrimony. He was also sporting enough to honestly meet many of the objections raised against his theory. No doubt these fine personal qualities of his were instrumental in winning him his retinue of early adherents. But they also served to mitigate and dissimulate the fact that the theory was very much his baby, which he defended with all the bias and schmaltz of a doting father.

Another realization that becomes clear is that what Darwin comprehended in the term "natural selection" differs rather substantially from what his modern friends now understand by the same words. Unmistakably, Darwin envisaged a sort of broad billowing out of incrementally distinct variants for whom the principal selective pressure was a desire to stay out of one another's way. Thus, for example, the stalks of wheat in a field all grow to slightly different heights, and lean this way and that, in an effort to avoid direct competition for the same space, to avoid directly competing to be the same thing. Evolution therefore, as Darwin conceived it, was inherently evasive and impelled life to divide into countless varieties. Those forms which were better at solidifying their idiosyncrasies would reproduce themselves more successfully. These differences are by their very nature binary, as adaptive distinctions get channeled along increasingly divergent paths. Given a field of wheat-like plants, natural selection would divide them into species that maximized their originally quite minimal distinctions. Instead of many stalks which all grew to more or less the same height with only minor variations, you might get one variety that sprang up straight and strong like buckwheat and another variety that crept along the ground like purslane. Meanwhile, the "fence-sitters" would find themselves increasingly unable to compete against either variety and would drop out of the struggle for existence. Those fence-sitters, almost by definition, comprise the parent species. Evolution proceeds by an inexorable process of binary selection and parricide.

In developing his theory thus, Darwin was a much more robust and careful thinker than either his supporters or his opponents turned out to be. One of the principal objections raised against Darwinism has always been the lack of transitional forms. However, this is rather unfair to the theory, since Darwin held that it is in the nature of transitional forms to rapidly disappear; besides which, there already exists before us many assemblages of closely related species which provide de facto evidence of the only type of transitional forms that the theory requires. On the other hand, the modern Neo-Darwinians are no servants of their master in their maniacal insistence that evolution has no teleology. Darwin believed that it did and he says so explicitly right there in his book. The purpose of evolution is to maximize not only the amount of life, but also the "happiness" of the life (yes, Darwin says this) that can survive in a given space. To this end, life is endowed with an intrinsic centripetal principle that proceeds by way of binary division and parricide. This principle cannot be explained merely by the tautology of the survivors surviving, i.e. the thermodynamic truism which would hold under any theory; it is something positive and synthetic which is annexed to the thermodynamic facts and makes use of them as a means.

Now, the fact that the theory of evolution really does have positive (and therefore falsifiable) content is the very thing the Neo-Darwinians would like to avoid. They would prefer that it remain in the realm of self-evident syllogisms that cannot be refuted (as the weight of the available evidence does not actually support it), although why they would prefer to do so is not easy to discern until one recognizes its potent mythological capacity. Darwinism is the mirror image of some very deeply ingrained tropes of the Western and especially the English culture. In its exclusive reliance on the fitness principle and its assertion of a universal trend towards happiness which is to be attained by overcoming the past and going one's own way, the style of ideation is at one with the ensemble of utilitarianism, republicanism, syncretism, and monism which characterizes its century. Thus, while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and "necessary" concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

The ongoing appeal of the theory consists entirely in the fact that -- for many people today and almost the entirety of the "educated" classes -- it forms the self-evident organizational metaphor for describing living activity, just as "democracy" forms the self-evident rubric for any discussion of politics, despite its obvious inadequacy in that regard. The culture does not recognize as well-formed thoughts that proceed on any other basis than these. But this, however, is a temporary phenomenon that is already far along in the process of fading out. Darwinism will not be replaced by further and better scientific developments; indeed, there will be no further scientific developments as far as the West is concerned, for the great age of scientific symbolism (the 18th century) lies irrecoverably far behind us. Rather, the remains of the theory will decay into a generic terminology for describing mundane practical matters. In the mind of the common man, it has already done so. Witness the readily understandable description of a useless act as a "Darwin Award."

Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune. Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom.

jilles dykstra , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:53 pm GMT
Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now
BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 4:58 pm GMT
@The Alarmist It's no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far. Maybe the Ancients and their panoply of Gods had it right after all.

It's no more a Hail Mary than supposing that a spark in primordial goo of Earth seems to have delivered the only detectable sentient life in the universe thus far. Maybe the Ancients and their panoply of Gods had it right after all.

It doesn't even get close to a Hail Mary. It is a desperate play from theist ignorance.

There is scientific method. There is logic. They provide many answers -- so many answers all well-founded, all verifiable, all directly observable through at least one method.

Intelligent Design is silliness. Life is a product of Intelligent Design, you say? What about water, essential to life? Intelligent Design created hydrogen and oxygen, and the water molecule, right? Else, Intelligent Design she no work for "life", yanno? Get to positing bullshit like "Intelligent Design", and you put yourself in an epistemological fix, all the way back to the presumed beginning of time. Intelligent Design provides all 47 elements crucial to human life -- hydrogen and oxygen being just a start on THAT issue. Intelligent Design provides an environment where life can survive and continue. Intelligent Design provides a planet just close enough to, and just far enough from good ol' Sol. And, damn, Intelligent Design provides that Sun, that moon, those stars, that galaxy, that Universe.

All to justify and substantiate bullshit claims as to the origin of life.

Enough nonsense. Bring forth a true modern age, and end superstition and ignorance.

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:02 pm GMT
@WorkingClass Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours. To a cockroach I am a vengeful god.

Regarding creation, if I have to choose between Darwin and God I will go with God. But I want more options. All Intelligent Design requires is an intelligence greater than ours.

Don't be ridiculous. Intelligent Design requires the fiat power to create and perpetuate that which is Designed.

Proving the existence of that fiat-capable thing is a real bitch.

DH , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:14 pm GMT
@BamBam Rubble

Links please
WTF? Are you in kindergarten? Just stupid? Just one who prefers ignorance and denial? "Irreducible complexity" has been quite adequately rebutted by competent scientists. If you don't know how to use the Internet, put some effort into learning. Do your own goddamn due diligence, asshole. Do you always require other people to do the work? And then you believe what you get back? Get the fuck to work, clown. Links please
BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:17 pm GMT
@Colin Wright '...Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that's the sort of creature we are...'

This may be tangential to your point, but it's worth pointing out that it's often not so much a matter of some trait or practice being there because it serves a purpose but of it being there because there's no particular reason for it not to continue being there.

We have an appendix, not because we need it, but because not having it wouldn't confer any striking advantage. It doesn't usually turn poisonous, and if it does, likely as not we've already sired children anyway.

Things can be like the old trampoline in the basement. They're often there, not because they're needed, but because there's no compelling reason to get rid of them. If a society practices female clitorectomies, for example, it'll likely go on practising female clitorectomies even if no purpose is served -- just so long as female life expectancy and fertility isn't dramatically affected. If a dog has a tail, it's not necessarily because it needs a tail, but because it won't benefit significantly from getting rid of the tail.

If a dog has a tail, it's not necessarily because it needs a tail, but because it won't benefit significantly from getting rid of the tail.

It's because the tail does not prevent reproduction. The key to evolution is the survival of those fit to survive and reproduce. It is that simple.

Every May, 10 billion mayflies hatch. Most die. One million survive to lay 10 billion eggs, which hatch the following May. Survival and continued existence of mayflies is that simple.

"Fittest" was the wrong choice of word. "Fit" is correct.

"Good enough" works every time.

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:21 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now

Glancing trough the reactions it strikes me how few now seem to understand that denying the biblical creation at the time emotionally was like holocaust denial now

Worse, much worse. If anything puts Xtians in a murderous mood, it's Creation Denial.

How come there's a gold stripe around your comment? Some kind of merit badge manifestation?

The Alarmist , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:22 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein When reading the Origin of Species, one is impressed by the fact that Darwin himself comes across as very genteel individual, as someone largely free of any tendencies towards bitterness, ambition, or acrimony. He was also sporting enough to honestly meet many of the objections raised against his theory. No doubt these fine personal qualities of his were instrumental in winning him his retinue of early adherents. But they also served to mitigate and dissimulate the fact that the theory was very much his baby, which he defended with all the bias and schmaltz of a doting father.

Another realization that becomes clear is that what Darwin comprehended in the term "natural selection" differs rather substantially from what his modern friends now understand by the same words. Unmistakably, Darwin envisaged a sort of broad billowing out of incrementally distinct variants for whom the principal selective pressure was a desire to stay out of one another's way. Thus, for example, the stalks of wheat in a field all grow to slightly different heights, and lean this way and that, in an effort to avoid direct competition for the same space, to avoid directly competing to be the same thing. Evolution therefore, as Darwin conceived it, was inherently evasive and impelled life to divide into countless varieties. Those forms which were better at solidifying their idiosyncrasies would reproduce themselves more successfully. These differences are by their very nature binary, as adaptive distinctions get channeled along increasingly divergent paths. Given a field of wheat-like plants, natural selection would divide them into species that maximized their originally quite minimal distinctions. Instead of many stalks which all grew to more or less the same height with only minor variations, you might get one variety that sprang up straight and strong like buckwheat and another variety that crept along the ground like purslane. Meanwhile, the "fence-sitters" would find themselves increasingly unable to compete against either variety and would drop out of the struggle for existence. Those fence-sitters, almost by definition, comprise the parent species. Evolution proceeds by an inexorable process of binary selection and parricide.

In developing his theory thus, Darwin was a much more robust and careful thinker than either his supporters or his opponents turned out to be. One of the principal objections raised against Darwinism has always been the lack of transitional forms. However, this is rather unfair to the theory, since Darwin held that it is in the nature of transitional forms to rapidly disappear; besides which, there already exists before us many assemblages of closely related species which provide de facto evidence of the only type of transitional forms that the theory requires. On the other hand, the modern Neo-Darwinians are no servants of their master in their maniacal insistence that evolution has no teleology. Darwin believed that it did and he says so explicitly right there in his book. The purpose of evolution is to maximize not only the amount of life, but also the "happiness" of the life (yes, Darwin says this) that can survive in a given space. To this end, life is endowed with an intrinsic centripetal principle that proceeds by way of binary division and parricide. This principle cannot be explained merely by the tautology of the survivors surviving, i.e. the thermodynamic truism which would hold under any theory; it is something positive and synthetic which is annexed to the thermodynamic facts and makes use of them as a means.

Now, the fact that the theory of evolution really does have positive (and therefore falsifiable) content is the very thing the Neo-Darwinians would like to avoid. They would prefer that it remain in the realm of self-evident syllogisms that cannot be refuted (as the weight of the available evidence does not actually support it), although why they would prefer to do so is not easy to discern until one recognizes its potent mythological capacity. Darwinism is the mirror image of some very deeply ingrained tropes of the Western and especially the English culture. In its exclusive reliance on the fitness principle and its assertion of a universal trend towards happiness which is to be attained by overcoming the past and going one's own way, the style of ideation is at one with the ensemble of utilitarianism, republicanism, syncretism, and monism which characterizes its century. Thus, while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and "necessary" concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

The ongoing appeal of the theory consists entirely in the fact that---for many people today and almost the entirety of the "educated" classes---it forms the self-evident organizational metaphor for describing living activity, just as "democracy" forms the self-evident rubric for any discussion of politics, despite its obvious inadequacy in that regard. The culture does not recognize as well-formed thoughts that proceed on any other basis than these. But this, however, is a temporary phenomenon that is already far along in the process of fading out. Darwinism will not be replaced by further and better scientific developments; indeed, there will be no further scientific developments as far as the West is concerned, for the great age of scientific symbolism (the 18th century) lies irrecoverably far behind us. Rather, the remains of the theory will decay into a generic terminology for describing mundane practical matters. In the mind of the common man, it has already done so. Witness the readily understandable description of a useless act as a "Darwin Award."

Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune. Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom. Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution, as evidenced by his collaboration with Wallace, but he perhaps gave the most coherent and reasoned explanation of the theory. Like the telephone, the theory of evolution has many fathers.

prusmc , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
@Jeff Stryker The Hispanics are actually driving blacks out of California along with the Oakies, the Irish-Catholics, the Koreans, the Jews...and everyone else.

No amount of territoriality helps if another race is willing to kill you.

The problem is that just like Miami, the blacks have nowhere else to go. They are not as inclined to move to Utah.

They are trapped and cannot learn Spanish. I really don't think the people of Utah want them. Of course this has not stopped the Fed's and the religion base-federally funded parasite organizations : Lutherin, Methodist, Episcopal, Jewish and Catholic chairities from moving Congolese into Wyoming, Somalians into Maine and various Muslim refugees into Burlington, Vermont. Bernie does not need their votes he has more than enough.

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 5:29 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

Does not Darwinism itself qualify as pseudoscience? It is firmly based on no evidence.
Fred back to his evolution bollocks, a subject about which he knows nothing except what is not the case. For a corrective, may I suggest:

Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed, but chacun a son gout .

How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?

Colin Wright , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
' No. Has a metabolizing, reproducing chemical complex been constructed in the laboratory, showing that it might be possible? No '

It's worth pointing out that this is just a variation on the reason God -- and gods -- were traditionally believed in.

Do we understand how thunder works? If you're an eighth century Viking, of course you don't. Ergo, there's a thunder god.

I'm not convinced that that we cannot explain a given datum is sufficient evidence to conclude God exists. My dog probably would have been at a loss to explain how a car worked -- most people would. It doesn't follow that there's a God and he made cars.

Intelligent Dasein , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
@The Alarmist Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution, as evidenced by his collaboration with Wallace, but he perhaps gave the most coherent and reasoned explanation of the theory. Like the telephone, the theory of evolution has many fathers.

Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution

I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle. That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

I'm guessing you did not read past the first paragraph of my original comment, otherwise you would not have made this entirely beside-the-point remark. I do not necessarily mind explaining further, but there has to be some practical limit when it comes to saying things I've already said.

Agent76 , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:16 pm GMT
Aug 6, 2013 Evolution Vs. God

Hear expert testimony from leading evolutionary scientists from some of the world's top universities.

• Peter Nonacs, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA
• Craig Stanford, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC
• PZ Myers, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris
• Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UCLA

A study of the evidence of vestigial organs, natural selection, the fifth digit, the relevance of the stickleback, Darwin's finches and Lenski's bacteria -- all under the microscope of the Scientific Method -- observable evidence from the minds of experts. Prepare to have your faith shaken.

Agent76 , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:22 pm GMT
This is another great video of conception and the processes in detail and more folk's need to view and know.

Nov 14, 2011 Conception to birth -- visualized

Image-maker Alexander Tsiaras shares a powerful medical visualization, showing human development from conception to birth and beyond.

AaronB , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:35 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution...
I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle. That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

I'm guessing you did not read past the first paragraph of my original comment, otherwise you would not have made this entirely beside-the-point remark. I do not necessarily mind explaining further, but there has to be some practical limit when it comes to saying things I've already said.

That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

I think this needs to be the key point.

At this late date, it hardly needs refuting anymore. We should try and understand what modern need it fills.

BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

Darwin was hardly the first to articulate a concept of evolution...
I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle. That is why the modern popularity of evolution requires some explanation other than scientific evidence or metaphysical veracity, which it clearly lacks.

I'm guessing you did not read past the first paragraph of my original comment, otherwise you would not have made this entirely beside-the-point remark. I do not necessarily mind explaining further, but there has to be some practical limit when it comes to saying things I've already said.

I did not say that he was. I have said many times in this forum that evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and were successfully refuted as long ago as Aristotle.

LOL. Yeah, "refuted" via thundering declaration of phlogiston-stuff.

Or something analogous. You theists have pontificated BS for centuries. After all, what else could it be BUT Yahweh, right?

Lurker , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
@Bragadocious I've found that the most belligerent defenders of Evolution come from the UK. Not surprising since they're defending a British pseudo-scientist (Darwin was a theologian by training) whose main activity during his college education was collecting beetles. Also interesting: despite their aggressive defense of Evolution and primordial soup, the Brits also commonly believe in alien life. L. Ron Hubbard set up his world HQ in Britain for a reason. British taxi driver George King also created a UFO religion out of whole cloth that now has 58 branches worldwide, most in the UK. I don't know how you square On the Origin of Species with little green men from Mars, but the Brits have found a way. You have proof there is no alien life, why has this been kept secret?

Btw I'm in the UK, I've never heard of George King or his religion.

Just looked him up. Nope, doesn't ring a bell at all.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:54 pm GMT
@Thomm It is a privilege to see a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew like Ron Unz singlehandedly tie up hundreds if not thousands of White Trashionalists at once.

Step 1 : Make a website that WNs use (since they can never build anything on their own). Let any and all anti-Semitic slurs stand on the website to make WNs complacent and even keyboard-courageous.
Step 2 : Recruit the 2-3 intelligent authors that WNs read (Sailer, Derbyshire, etc.) who happen to bad at making money, so that they write for very little renumeration.
Step 3 : After a few years, start pushing for normalization of Hispanics (even if illegal; especially if illegal).
Step 4 : Deploy someone like Fred Reed to generate even more confusion.

It works and it is a lesson in asymmetrical attrition warfare by a sophisticated Confuse and Conquer Jew.

Ron Unz has said about 95% of this site disputes the fact that the real division is black vs non-black. I am among the 5% that agree with him (although I am more conservative than him, since I think there should be only skilled, legal immigration, not unskilled and certainly never illegal).

Now, here is the thing. Those who talk about Auschwitz, lampshades, and soap never get moderated here, but those who agree with Ron Unz do. He will even get angry with those who agree with him too vocally, even as any and all anti-Israel content is fully welcome.

Why?

It is because he thinks it will expose his game of 4D chess from the perception of a 70-IQ WN. But I guarantee that it cannot, since the typical White Trashionalist is far below the IQ threshold where they can observe the many pieces in motion. I can describe Ron's plan in full detail (and I fully support it), without any risk of the WNs figuring anything out (much less leaving this site).

I am strongly in favor of what Ron Unz is doing.

Some parts .not bad.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 6:57 pm GMT
@utu The problem with the ToE is that it is de facto tautological so there is no means of falsification. Thus it is a dogma that any living organism that exists is the outcome of evolutionary process. There is no other possibility. So all the stories that can be told about this organism must a priori be framed within the ToE. The ToE has no predictive ability. We must resign ourselves to accept any outcome because whatever will evolve had to evolve. We can only construct a posteriori stories that justify the outcome. The stories are no different from the just-so stories except that Kipling had sense of humor while evolutionsts take themselves dead seriously. Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism. This is not necessarily overtly acknowledged but it is implied. The veracity of the stories is usually unprovable in the sense of rigorous proofs available in other branches of science. It is unimaginable that any evidence could derail or even put a dent in the ToE. For all the reasons above the ToE is true because it must be true and nothing can be done about it.

Their seriousness and lack of distance or sense humor stems from the fact that they are the high priest and the keepers of the dogma which suppose to save humanity form religious obscurantism.

Yup.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:03 pm GMT
@AaronB Intelligent Design must be viewed with hostility by the scientific establishment.

Science is supposed to give humans control - if Intelligent Design is true, it would mean there are other forces at work in the universe, humans must share power, humans have less control than they thought.

That goes against the whole Point of Science.

Intelligent Design is a dead theory from the pov of science - if true, now what? How does that add to our power to shape our destiny? We just submit to a higher power?

Evolutionary Theory has resulted in an actual sense of increased power for us - we apply it in male/female relations, we apply it to population differences, we understand human behavior and motivation through its prism.

It hardly matters that all of this is false - that it cannot explain male/female relations or population differences. It hardly matters that it gives us a false sense of power.

Science must prefer it. Only another theory that offers more power than Evolution will be even remotely considered.

Intelligent Design cancels out science, neuters it, destroys it - it is not just another scientific theory.

How can Intelligent Design give us more power?

Mankind seems to need security more than anything. Our primary motivation seems to be fear. Good post.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:09 pm GMT
@AaronB You make an interesting point.

There are two theories about what leads to maximum human flourishing and well being and security.

One is that we maximize our control of the environment we find ourselves in. The dream of science. This requires psychologically cutting ourselves off from nature, seeing ourselves as separate from it and in opposition to it, and trying to dominate it.

Supposedly we will turn discover the laws that lead to our maximum emotional, psychological, and physical well being. Security and well being depend on us maximizing our power and control.

The alternative, what you call mystic , suggests that human flourishing depends on relinquishing power and control , an utterly radical perspective from the pov of science. The mystic theory says that we flourish best by collaborating with other forces in the universe, cooperating and living in accordance with them, that our security and well being depends on our not cutting ourselves off from the larger whole in order to dominate it.

In the mystic system, not understanding some things is a necessary part of relinquishing control - simply because the faculty of discursive understanding is a limited tool that cuts us off from collaborating with the forces we need to be a part of in order to flourish. Mystery is thus a basic truth. Understanding is good, but limited.

The modern scientific approach seems to have failed to deliver on its promise of making us psychologically, emotionally, or physically flourish. By cutting ourselves off from the whole, our emotional and psychological life seems to have become stunted, narrow and empty, and mostly about conflict and strife. Anxiety is at record highs. And physically, we are less robust than ever, prey to a host of diseases our ancestors knew nothing about, and increasingly obese.

It seems seeing ourselves as independent fragments in opposition to the whole has not worked out. Have to say ..very good post.
Maybe a touch too good for the majority of audience around.

That science/mystic approach to life/existence ..thought provoking. Even from simply a daily perspective.

peterAUS , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:19 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein When reading the Origin of Species, one is impressed by the fact that Darwin himself comes across as very genteel individual, as someone largely free of any tendencies towards bitterness, ambition, or acrimony. He was also sporting enough to honestly meet many of the objections raised against his theory. No doubt these fine personal qualities of his were instrumental in winning him his retinue of early adherents. But they also served to mitigate and dissimulate the fact that the theory was very much his baby, which he defended with all the bias and schmaltz of a doting father.

Another realization that becomes clear is that what Darwin comprehended in the term "natural selection" differs rather substantially from what his modern friends now understand by the same words. Unmistakably, Darwin envisaged a sort of broad billowing out of incrementally distinct variants for whom the principal selective pressure was a desire to stay out of one another's way. Thus, for example, the stalks of wheat in a field all grow to slightly different heights, and lean this way and that, in an effort to avoid direct competition for the same space, to avoid directly competing to be the same thing. Evolution therefore, as Darwin conceived it, was inherently evasive and impelled life to divide into countless varieties. Those forms which were better at solidifying their idiosyncrasies would reproduce themselves more successfully. These differences are by their very nature binary, as adaptive distinctions get channeled along increasingly divergent paths. Given a field of wheat-like plants, natural selection would divide them into species that maximized their originally quite minimal distinctions. Instead of many stalks which all grew to more or less the same height with only minor variations, you might get one variety that sprang up straight and strong like buckwheat and another variety that crept along the ground like purslane. Meanwhile, the "fence-sitters" would find themselves increasingly unable to compete against either variety and would drop out of the struggle for existence. Those fence-sitters, almost by definition, comprise the parent species. Evolution proceeds by an inexorable process of binary selection and parricide.

In developing his theory thus, Darwin was a much more robust and careful thinker than either his supporters or his opponents turned out to be. One of the principal objections raised against Darwinism has always been the lack of transitional forms. However, this is rather unfair to the theory, since Darwin held that it is in the nature of transitional forms to rapidly disappear; besides which, there already exists before us many assemblages of closely related species which provide de facto evidence of the only type of transitional forms that the theory requires. On the other hand, the modern Neo-Darwinians are no servants of their master in their maniacal insistence that evolution has no teleology. Darwin believed that it did and he says so explicitly right there in his book. The purpose of evolution is to maximize not only the amount of life, but also the "happiness" of the life (yes, Darwin says this) that can survive in a given space. To this end, life is endowed with an intrinsic centripetal principle that proceeds by way of binary division and parricide. This principle cannot be explained merely by the tautology of the survivors surviving, i.e. the thermodynamic truism which would hold under any theory; it is something positive and synthetic which is annexed to the thermodynamic facts and makes use of them as a means.

Now, the fact that the theory of evolution really does have positive (and therefore falsifiable) content is the very thing the Neo-Darwinians would like to avoid. They would prefer that it remain in the realm of self-evident syllogisms that cannot be refuted (as the weight of the available evidence does not actually support it), although why they would prefer to do so is not easy to discern until one recognizes its potent mythological capacity. Darwinism is the mirror image of some very deeply ingrained tropes of the Western and especially the English culture. In its exclusive reliance on the fitness principle and its assertion of a universal trend towards happiness which is to be attained by overcoming the past and going one's own way, the style of ideation is at one with the ensemble of utilitarianism, republicanism, syncretism, and monism which characterizes its century. Thus, while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and "necessary" concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

The ongoing appeal of the theory consists entirely in the fact that---for many people today and almost the entirety of the "educated" classes---it forms the self-evident organizational metaphor for describing living activity, just as "democracy" forms the self-evident rubric for any discussion of politics, despite its obvious inadequacy in that regard. The culture does not recognize as well-formed thoughts that proceed on any other basis than these. But this, however, is a temporary phenomenon that is already far along in the process of fading out. Darwinism will not be replaced by further and better scientific developments; indeed, there will be no further scientific developments as far as the West is concerned, for the great age of scientific symbolism (the 18th century) lies irrecoverably far behind us. Rather, the remains of the theory will decay into a generic terminology for describing mundane practical matters. In the mind of the common man, it has already done so. Witness the readily understandable description of a useless act as a "Darwin Award."

Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune. Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom. Agree with

while Darwinism as science stands refuted, and Darwinism as metaphysics is absurd, Darwinism as literature is a deeply symbolic and "necessary" concomitant of the late stages of Western civilization.

and

Those who would point out the deficiencies in Darwinism or who wish to inquire into the real nature of biological phenomena may be doing a great service for truth, but they must realize that their efforts are outside the mainstream of the culture to which they belong, that they are no longer wanted

as for

.and therefore lack all symbolic weight, and that they will never be attended with earthly fame and fortune.Darwinism, like all fashions, succeeded not by veracity but by excitement, and perishes not of refutation but of boredom.

not quite sure about "never" and "boredom".

Thomm , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:22 pm GMT
@utu Thomm, are you making progress in solving the toilet problem in your home country?

Even Ducks Don't Like Indians
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/category/raceethnicity/south-asians/east-indians/ While I am not Indian (only a preposterously stupid person would think I am), remember that your face was deemed as a suitable solution to this problem.

Everybody wins, especially you, since you receive what you crave.

Your face. Remember that, so that you don't have to pose the same question ten times (given your low IQ of 70).

Heh heh heh heh

Moi , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:31 pm GMT
@utu

If a physicist at CalTech expressed doubts about general relativity, he would certainly be challenged to prove his theory. He would not be hounded, belittled, forced to resign, charged with pseudoscience, and banned from publication.
You are wrong. He would get the same treatment as anti Darwinists and and top of it it would be insinuate that he was an anti Semite. Challenging Einstein is a big no no and grave sin. Challenging Netanyahoo is a bigger no-no and graver sin–also a heck of a lot more dangerous.
attilathehen , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:42 pm GMT
"America has some fifty-seven million residents of Latin-American descent, mostly citizens. Willy-nilly, they are part of America. Thinking that many Americans might want to know something about them, where they came from, what they do and have done,"

No Fred. We know approximately 22 million are illegals and will have to go back. The remaining 37 million will be divided along IQ/race and black Hispanics will have to go back. Puerto Rico has to be declared independent.

Just because you married a Mexican woman, does not entitle you to bring in Latin America to make her happy.

Rich , says: September 23, 2018 at 8:12 pm GMT
@utu

If a physicist at CalTech expressed doubts about general relativity, he would certainly be challenged to prove his theory. He would not be hounded, belittled, forced to resign, charged with pseudoscience, and banned from publication.
You are wrong. He would get the same treatment as anti Darwinists and and top of it it would be insinuate that he was an anti Semite. Challenging Einstein is a big no no and grave sin. Funny thing is, Einstein didn't discover the Theory of Relativity. It was published 2 years earlier by an Italian scientist named Olento De Pretto. Whether Einstein stole the idea or arrived at it independently is disputed.
AaronB , says: September 23, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMT
@peterAUS Have to say.....very good post.
Maybe a touch too good for the majority of audience around.

That science/mystic approach to...life/existence.....thought provoking. Even from simply a daily perspective. Thanks, I'm glad you found something to appreciate in it.

CanSpeccy , says: Website September 23, 2018 at 9:02 pm GMT
@BamBam Rubble

Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger
Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed, but chacun a son gout .

How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five? Re: Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed.

Thank you for your positive assessment. The reason for the particular mode of address is that it was written explicitly as a response to an earlier nonsensical effusion from Fred on the subject of evolution.

As for,

How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?

Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

Jim Bob Lassiter , says: September 23, 2018 at 9:16 pm GMT
@peterAUS Have to say.....very good post.
Maybe a touch too good for the majority of audience around.

That science/mystic approach to...life/existence.....thought provoking. Even from simply a daily perspective. Hear! Hear! Indeed.

Fred's really at his best when he tells us niggra stories.

Cyrano , says: September 23, 2018 at 9:34 pm GMT
How do you call people that "believe" in evolution? – Evolutionaries. How do you call people that don't believe in evolution, who instead believe in one stupid religion or another? – Contra-evolutionaries.

I think that evolution makes a lot of sense. Evolution is basically competition and favoritism by mother nature – which wants only her good designs to succeed. To bash evolution because it can't accurately describe how life begun is ridiculous. No conta-evolutionary has ever been successful at providing meaningful explanation of how life started either, that hasn't stop anybody from believing in hundreds of useless religions.

Simply Simon , says: September 23, 2018 at 10:00 pm GMT
@Agent76 This is another great video of conception and the processes in detail and more folk's need to view and know.

Nov 14, 2011 Conception to birth -- visualized

Image-maker Alexander Tsiaras shares a powerful medical visualization, showing human development from conception to birth and beyond.

https://youtu.be/fKyljukBE70 Thanks, Agent 76 for posting this incredible video. Regardless what one thinks about abortion, the fact that millions of these complex structures called fetuses have been terminated before birth makes me feel that it would be infinitely better to prevent conception in the first place.

Anonymous , [428] Disclaimer says: September 23, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
The brainless boomer strikes again!
BamBam Rubble , says: September 23, 2018 at 10:41 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy Re: Misunderstanding Evolution, Or Evolutionary Theorists May Be Wrong, But Fred Reed Is Wronger

Good article. I would have addressed it to the more general audience composed of theists and other forms of True Believer, avoiding constant reference to Fred Reed.
Thank you for your positive assessment. The reason for the particular mode of address is that it was written explicitly as a response to an earlier nonsensical effusion from Fred on the subject of evolution.

As for,


How many commenters here are capable of understanding what you wrote? Four? Five?
Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

Surely more than four or five. In fact, I would assume practically all. The arguments are straight foreward, unquestionably correct, presented in plain language, and understanding them requires no special knowledge whatever.

Sorry, poor word-choice on my part. How many commenters here are capable of accepting what you wrote?

KenH , says: September 23, 2018 at 10:50 pm GMT
@Rurik

We are told that life arose by chance in the primeval oceans.
how life got here in the first place is speculation. No one knows for sure, no one I know of pretends to.

Do we know of what those oceans consisted?
They could have been boiling acids and lava that sleestacks were using as breeding ponds, and perhaps some of their juices got lodged in a volcanic plume, and eventually descended back to earth, to seed the planet with its first 'indigenous' life form.

Can we categorically dismiss this theory as impossible? No, we can not.

But how life got here, is an entirely different conversation than whether or not evolution happens.

Clue: it does.

Simply consider the Neanderthal. We know he existed. We have his bones and caves.

But where is he today?

Exactly.

Survival of the fittest. When sleestacks one day return to Earth, and find that among the throngs of waddling bipedals that evolved from their original seed, there are no more of the pale versions left, that will be because their will to persevere could not prevail over the treacherous, near infinite venality of some of their members.

And btw, while I consider it arrogant for anyone, either a religious zealot or someone posing as a 'scientist'.. to pretend to know how life got here..

..it's just as presumptuous, arrogant, dogmatic and closed-minded - to presume to know that it was put here by ID.

We can't know how life got here, but that certainly doesn't mean that it necessarily was put here by a purposeful "intelligent design'. That's just more of the kind of arrogant certainty that most religions display and yes, some of those claiming to be 'scientists' as well.

Science can't 'know' anything that can't be put to the test or experiment. And since it's rather (at this time anyways) impossible to reconstruct the earth's environment four billions or so years ago, (sleestacks notwithstanding), we can't know such things. All they can do is speculate based on what they can know; with experimentation.

But evolution is happening right before your eyes, man.

The dodo bird is no more. Tigers and elephants and rhinos and thousands of other species are being whipped out in our lifetimes, to make more and more room for bipedal consumer units / tax slaves / cannon fodder. As those other species become extinct, it will be due to realities on the ground. Literally in most cases, as their habitats are taken over by a competing species.

This is all brutally obvious once you set aside your prejudices and vanity.

Often, the resistance to the idea of evolution, is a resistance to the idea that we are related to the lesser apes.

Human vanity is often viscerally repulsed by this idea. But wishing it wasn't so, doesn't make it go away.

http://i.pbase.com/g3/32/803532/2/99237234.fDbi3ga9.jpg The white race is becoming the contemporary dodo bird.

Major1 , says: September 23, 2018 at 11:16 pm GMT
Haha Fred, and those that link to him, sure know how to get the clicks, don't they?
Fred thinks that his "take no prisoners" style of writing frees him from the responsibility of making sense. If challenged on the stupid shit he says, he and his defenders hide behind the "That's just Fred bein' Fred" defense.
Anyone who posits that ID and the TOE are equivalent because neither has all the answers is scientifically illiterate, or just a diehard apologist for religious creation myths.
And anyone who uses the phrase "irreducible complexity" in a discussion of ID is at least 20 years behind everyone else. And is probably a recalcitrant pedant.
Same old thing. Creationists, because they don't know how science works, assail the TOE as faulty or untrue because every single gap in the evolutionary record hasn't yet been filled in, or the exact mechanism of every facet of evolution hasn't yet been elucidated. While offering zero proof of their own dogma. Where, exactly, are the state of the art laboratories where scientists are toiling to prove that ID is true and how it happened? Where are the landmark papers from these scientists? There is a difference between proposing, defending and proving your own theory and just unceasingly attacking someone else's. Especially with the same tired, shabby arguments. Actual scientists know this. Ken Ham and Michael Behe do not. Fred sure doesn't.
And can we stop calling it Intelligent Design? It's creationism with a different name. You can tie a pretty pink ribbon around a pig's neck but it's still a pig.

[Sep 23, 2018] What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Replies: @Logan

Quite right. ML got something resembling due process. , @anonymous The Worms "Hier stehe ich" ("Here I stand") comment may have been a convenient shorthand for a much more long-winded speech, so Luther may not have actually uttered those words. Nevertheless, point taken. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Alden says: August 10, 2017 at 5:59 am GMT 200 Words Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.

If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center, close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive and legislative branches.

Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky treated the Russian counterrevolution.

I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.

I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it. Read More Replies: @Sowhat


I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.
Guilty as charged...As many immature, uneducated Whites in the sixties, I too was played like a fiddle. If I only knew then what I know now... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
5371 says: August 10, 2017 at 6:09 am GMT He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly, not part of a practical movement or party. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

ineffectual intellectual
What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities" field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
WHAT says: August 10, 2017 at 6:12 am GMT Egor certainly deserves much more publicity than he is getting right now. I wouldn`t agree on the other Egor being the most talented, but he did his own important thing, creating a first real media platform for the Russian nationalism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 7:13 am GMT

conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.

EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? Read More Replies: @Logan A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.

Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the space inside the box.

But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really aware a box exists. They envision a new box.

Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can expand on and implement it. Build the box.

Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types. But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.

Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing. Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.

I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left for being open to new ideas.

You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.

To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests. , @Joe Franklin


The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?
Leftist set the ideological tone because entitled-by-law diversity people (aka leftist) are a organized super-majority of the voting populace in the US and Israel:

Feminist are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veterans are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
Native Americans are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
International Socialist are federally entitled because of anti-Totalitarian oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Neocon oppression

Diversity people are over 95% of the US voting population and are 100% of the Israeli population. , @Daniel Chieh As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
jimmyriddle says: August 10, 2017 at 7:15 am GMT 200 Words "but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."

Damore doesn't say that – he explicitly says the opposite:

" I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

https://diversitymemo.com/

The author of this piece has made the same error as much of the Anglo MSM.

Damore has been a victim of liberal arts people not being able to understand that he is talking about population averages, not individuals. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 8:25 am GMT

– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

That's a fairly eloquent argument right off the bat. Read More Agree: Dieter Kief Replies: @Dieter Kief I agree. (Button out of work) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 8:57 am GMT 200 Words "Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."

He said no such thing.

He said that as a group more women than men fit these stereotypes, percentages undetermined.

I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine, irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature.

That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue, or invalid. Outmoded.

Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth.

IOW, Google fired him for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT @Diversity Heretic Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." Quite right. ML got something resembling due process. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 9:11 am GMT 300 Words @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.

Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the space inside the box.

But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really aware a box exists. They envision a new box.

Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can expand on and implement it. Build the box.

Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types. But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.

Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing. Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.

I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left for being open to new ideas.

You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.

To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
animalogic says: August 10, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT 200 Words "and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant "Only to those too blind to see.

"The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent."
Excellent point. Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent".

"It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
jim jones says: August 10, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT Credit to Vox Day:

http://imgur.com/a/BTwz3 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Greg Bacon says: Website August 10, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT 300 Words This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.

It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.

It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most of the music business, letting artists–mostly rap–sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.

After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change, but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty. Read More Agree: Seamus Padraig , anarchyst , Rurik Replies: @Fidelios Automata Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over. Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
The Alarmist says: August 10, 2017 at 9:30 am GMT 100 Words

"is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services."

Yep, we can discuss it in what the Libs consider to be our own little conspiracy-theory echo chamber. Sometimes you have to accept that there is evil and then decide what to do about it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Daniil Adamov says: August 10, 2017 at 10:03 am GMT 100 Words The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article. Read More Replies: @Anon


this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic
That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. , @englishmike

(Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get)
That's a fair comment, and I imagine that most people commenting here would be aware of Damore's limitations as a thinker. But what he wrote, and the context in which he published it, has attracted that "surprising notoriety": he appears to have sparked different kinds of reaction in different kinds of people and inspired levels of debate beyond the limitations of his thought.

Maybe the Unz Review should consider offering him a platform from which to write a follow-up by inviting him to submit a blog, or at least to contribute as a commenter on a thread such as this one. It would enable him to take his arguments further and also to submit them to the critical responses of the commenters here - which would be more respectful and less trivial than the ones he has encountered in the Google "community".

It might also attract people to the Unz Review who have not yet benefited from the "interesting, important and controversial" perspectives available here. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Dieter Kief says: August 10, 2017 at 10:07 am GMT @Anonymous


– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

That's a fairly eloquent argument right off the bat. I agree. (Button out of work) Read More Replies: @Anonymous This is why we need a * highher * power to put these "masters of the universe" in their place. Google is a utility and it should be treated as such. End of story. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Dieter Kief says: August 10, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT 200 Words Egor Kholmogorov is a very intersting new voice – – thanks – all – for your efforts.

(James Damore is no Martin Luther: Luther is the person in world history , that is written about the most. By putting Damore in such oversized boots, no wonder Kholmogorov after a while finds, that his subject doesn't walk properly. What Damore tries to do is not, to understand our times, or to reform modern society or some such: He simply takes a position in a debate over role models – and a debate about a pretty Marxist question, if you think about it: Just how many of our character traits have a material (=biological) basis. That task Damore solves clear and well, I think. But more, he doesn't, – – whereas Luther for example (or Brenz from Schwäbisch Hall & Melanchthon from Bretten) really tried – and (mostly) achieved)). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 10, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. Read More Replies: @iffen It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently.

Perfect overlap then. , @AP


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? , @Jaakko Raipala This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them - they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard. , @dfordoom


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
Agreed. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 10:45 am GMT @Dieter Kief I agree. (Button out of work) This is why we need a * highher * power to put these "masters of the universe" in their place. Google is a utility and it should be treated as such. End of story. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Zogby says: August 10, 2017 at 10:47 am GMT 200 Words This is turning out to be the most incendiary firing since James Comey.
Damore's essay is an expression of his self-interest in retaining male dominance in software engineering and his anger that his employer is making moves of artificial reverse-discrimination in order to try and reverse the dominance. It is guised in intellectual terms but that's really all there is to it. His company's management supports the attempt to shift power from men to women – and are worried Damore or the likes of him will succeed in organizing a male rebellion – which would bring the company down because of its dependence on the male workforce. That's why they panicked and fired him. And to top it off, Google is run by a foreign feminized beta male – which – being a member of a minority – is unable himself to take on The Powers That Be in America. Because a being a Hindu he's presupposed to need reeducation himself to fit in American society. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 10, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT 400 Words Good article, Anatoly. Thanks for the translation.

The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.

Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice; on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so he may not be aware of this.

Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.

Prejudice is simply the layman's empiricism -- i.e., learning from experience. When you don't know the individual in question, you are always going to fall back on assumptions based on known patterns. That's why prejudice is impossible to get rid of: you would have to get rid of human nature.

This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career.

I agree with commenter #10 above that this is not a fair characterization of Damore's argument. Damore spoke of statistical averages. He never said "all men" or "all women".

However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society.

So true, and I wonder how you reacted to reading that, Anatoly. This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture , which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even being a civilization worth living in while it lasts. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
bliss_porsena says: August 10, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT Don't do any more translation. Leave the original in Russian where it belongs, and summarise. Parse the nuggets of gold into bullet points. Two or three should do it. Read More Disagree: Seamus Padraig Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymouse says: August 10, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT God help the Russians if this pedestrian essay was written by their best man. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Joe Franklin says: August 10, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT 200 Words @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?

The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?

Leftist set the ideological tone because entitled-by-law diversity people (aka leftist) are a organized super-majority of the voting populace in the US and Israel:

Feminist are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veterans are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
Native Americans are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
International Socialist are federally entitled because of anti-Totalitarian oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Neocon oppression

Diversity people are over 95% of the US voting population and are 100% of the Israeli population. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Carlo says: August 10, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT 100 Words "Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle."
In the long run, this is good. Natural selection will ensure that in a few decades Google and many other big Western corporations who follow these lines will fail due to incompetence of their managers and employees, and more pragmatic ones will appear and replace them, usually from more traditional and rational societies in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Russia) and East Asia (China, South Korea, Singapur). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
utu says: August 10, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT 100 Words Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion.

We still have peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes.

We know a lot about Martin Luther private life but we know less about James Damore. Is there also the issue of getting laid? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Daniel Chieh says: August 10, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. Read More Replies: @iffen As in most things, a balance is probably ideal.

Moderation in all things, save moderation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Joe Hide says: August 10, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT Anatoly,
Good read. Good examples to support an emotionally spirited article. Keep writing. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT 100 Words

Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.

That could be read as just the usual conservative "antiracism". Now admittedly there certainly should be moral and ethical limits regarding those issues, one should take care not to end up at the same conclusions and deeds as the Nazis but still, in the present intellectual climate of the West bashing "Conservative naturalism" would be very misguided imo. All this talk of Burkean conservatism, tradition, religion etc. will be totally ineffectual against the progressive juggernaut.
As for that Google memo is that really important? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently.

Perfect overlap then. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
FD says: August 10, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT Why did you omit the original title, "Triumph of the Gender Sharikovs"? Read More Replies: @Fluctuarius The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in a footnote. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.

Great! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT @Daniel Chieh As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal.

Moderation in all things, save moderation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT @Daniil Adamov The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his - honestly somewhat surprising - current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.

this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic

That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. Read More Replies: @Anon That's not saying very much. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Ivan K. says: August 10, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT 200 Words Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. "

I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.

Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster "

Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs. Read More Replies: @iffen Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.

Good point.

In that they ended up in a war of annihilation, could we say that each was served by their respective prejudices? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Michael Kenny says: August 10, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT 100 Words What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting. Read More Disagree: JL Replies: @Anon


He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans.
Fellow Europeans? They are not his fellow Europeans.
He is not an European and modern Europe is increasingly an extension of America, and not something independent. , @Daniel Chieh This is not without historical precedent.

The notion of the Russian soul has always existed as a contrast to the rest of Europe, and to be fair, most of Europe is assimilated heavily to what their idea of America is. I know of quite a few Russians who would be annoyed if you called them "fellow Europeans." Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT @Anon


this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic
That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. That's not saying very much. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT @Ivan K. Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. "

I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.

Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster "

Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs. Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.

Good point.

In that they ended up in a war of annihilation, could we say that each was served by their respective prejudices? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
WorkingClass says: August 10, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT 100 Words The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies. Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig


Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.
Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't conservatism. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT @Michael Kenny What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting.

He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans.

Fellow Europeans? They are not his fellow Europeans.
He is not an European and modern Europe is increasingly an extension of America, and not something independent. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT @Diversity Heretic Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." The Worms "Hier stehe ich" ("Here I stand") comment may have been a convenient shorthand for a much more long-winded speech, so Luther may not have actually uttered those words. Nevertheless, point taken. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Daniel Chieh says: August 10, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT 100 Words @Michael Kenny What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting. This is not without historical precedent.

The notion of the Russian soul has always existed as a contrast to the rest of Europe, and to be fair, most of Europe is assimilated heavily to what their idea of America is. I know of quite a few Russians who would be annoyed if you called them "fellow Europeans." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
nickels says: August 10, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
There is little point arguing from a 'common sense' stance against the leftists.
This is war, not an argument.

Liberalism must be destroyed. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin


This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Cagey Beast says: Website August 10, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT 200 Words Seeing Orthodoxy and Martin Luther mentioned in the same place reminded me of the amusing history of early Lutheran contacts with the eastern Church:

Most Christians are not aware that in the latter part of the 16th century, early Lutheran Reformers – close colleagues and followers of Martin Luther – set in motion an eight year contact and correspondence with the (then) Ecumenical Patriarch, Jeremias II of Constantinople. The outcome might have changed the course of Christian history. Kevin Allen speaks with scholar Dr Paraskeve (Eve) Tibbs about this fascinating and largely unknown chapter in post-Reformation history.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

From Wittenberg to Antioch
September 16, 2007 Length: 32:12

A fascinating interview with Fr. Gregory Hogg, an Antiochian priest in Western Michigan. Fr. Gregory was a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor and professor for 22 years before coming to Orthodoxy.
[...]

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

Long story short, the western reformers were too argumentative and lawyerly for the Patriarch of Constantinople to take. He essentially said "please stop writing to me". Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Wally says: August 10, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT Basically the Left is in denial of science DNA. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig Yes, it's funny, isn't it. Liberals loudly proclaim their allegiance to evolution, but only to attack Christianity. But as soon as the concept of evolution upsets their non-scientific theories of 'gender fluidity' and 'racial equality', they close their eyes, cover their ears, and stomp their little feet. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 10, 2017 at 6:25 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently

So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art says: August 10, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT 100 Words Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace -- Art Read More Replies: @utu STEVE BANNON WANTS FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE REGULATED LIKE UTILITIES
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ , @Darin


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility
Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 10, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT @Art Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace --- Art STEVE BANNON WANTS FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE REGULATED LIKE UTILITIES

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
22pp22 says: August 10, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT I've abandoned Google and gone over to Duckduckgo. They seem just as good. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig Yes, I've been using DuckDuckGo.com for over four years now, and no regrets. No filter bubbles either! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Jaakko Raipala says: August 10, 2017 at 7:58 pm GMT 300 Words @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them – they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard. Read More Agree: Anatoly Karlin , Johann Ricke Replies: @Miro23


Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Fluctuarius says: August 10, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT @FD Why did you omit the original title, "Triumph of the Gender Sharikovs"? The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in a footnote. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
englishmike says: August 10, 2017 at 8:38 pm GMT 200 Words @Daniil Adamov The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his - honestly somewhat surprising - current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.

(Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get)

That's a fair comment, and I imagine that most people commenting here would be aware of Damore's limitations as a thinker. But what he wrote, and the context in which he published it, has attracted that "surprising notoriety": he appears to have sparked different kinds of reaction in different kinds of people and inspired levels of debate beyond the limitations of his thought.

Maybe the Unz Review should consider offering him a platform from which to write a follow-up by inviting him to submit a blog, or at least to contribute as a commenter on a thread such as this one. It would enable him to take his arguments further and also to submit them to the critical responses of the commenters here – which would be more respectful and less trivial than the ones he has encountered in the Google "community".

It might also attract people to the Unz Review who have not yet benefited from the "interesting, important and controversial" perspectives available here. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 10, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT 100 Words @5371 He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly, not part of a practical movement or party.

ineffectual intellectual

What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities" field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 10, 2017 at 9:04 pm GMT 100 Words

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

Ooookey Dookey! And how about other two fundamental signs of impending revolution? I agree with vanguard argument, after all school in Longjumeau was doing just that–preparing the vanguard. But what about economics of revolution? What about political crisis? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Darin says: August 10, 2017 at 9:30 pm GMT @Art Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace --- Art

Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership? Read More Replies: @Art


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Darin,

The exstreams of Google Today and United States Googlemaster General will not work for us – there can be something in between. A golden mean can be reached.

The best situation would be for Googles users, to each set the policy for themselves.

This is doable. They get to choose the what algorithms they want and the viewing policy they want.

Googlemaster General must see that ALL information is collected and made available to users.

Peace --- Art Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art says: August 10, 2017 at 10:13 pm GMT 100 Words @Darin


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility
Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Darin,

The exstreams of Google Today and United States Googlemaster General will not work for us – there can be something in between. A golden mean can be reached.

The best situation would be for Googles users, to each set the policy for themselves.

This is doable. They get to choose the what algorithms they want and the viewing policy they want.

Googlemaster General must see that ALL information is collected and made available to users.

Peace -- Art Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT "Polity" should be "policy". "Diving" should be "dividing".

I stopped noticing after that.

Give the new Russian translator a break. Read his copy before posting it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Macumazahn says: August 11, 2017 at 1:15 am GMT 100 Words If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they bring to the table that men do not?
This same observation applies to all "diversity" hiring. If one denies the differences among groups, there can be no business justification for diversity – aside, that is, from Lefty boycotts. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Miro23 says: August 11, 2017 at 2:43 am GMT 400 Words @Jaakko Raipala This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them - they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power – some of them acting idealistically – some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2. Read More Replies: @melanf


The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.
The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2") is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Jivilov says: August 11, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. Read More Agree: utu Replies: @Seamus Padraig I agree. The term 'gender' is for Latin nouns, not living beings. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
melanf says: August 11, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT 100 Words @Miro23


Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2″) is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/

" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom... Isn,' t it obvious by now? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
dfordoom says: Website August 11, 2017 at 5:09 am GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

Agreed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
JackOH says: August 11, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT 100 Words Anatoly, thanks for introducing some Russian writers. My experience of reading outsiders who write about America is that they sometimes offer startling viewpoints that are helpful to those of us "in-country" who are too close to the subject matter.

BTW- RT used to have, or maybe still has, an American-born presenter-opinionizer, a guy from Cleveland, Ohio. I think he's an ex-pat in Russia now, and he used to offer folksy, sharply worded critiques of life in the States. I couldn't find his name, but he might be worth looking up to see if he wants to contribute. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 am GMT 100 Words @AP


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. , @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 8:49 am GMT 100 Words @melanf


The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.
The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2") is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom Isn,' t it obvious by now? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT 100 Words @WorkingClass The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies. Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus.

Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.

Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't conservatism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT @Wally Basically the Left is in denial of science ... DNA. Yes, it's funny, isn't it. Liberals loudly proclaim their allegiance to evolution, but only to attack Christianity. But as soon as the concept of evolution upsets their non-scientific theories of 'gender fluidity' and 'racial equality', they close their eyes, cover their ears, and stomp their little feet. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT @22pp22 I've abandoned Google and gone over to Duckduckgo. They seem just as good. Yes, I've been using DuckDuckGo.com for over four years now, and no regrets. No filter bubbles either! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:57 am GMT @Jivilov Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. I agree. The term 'gender' is for Latin nouns, not living beings. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. Read More Replies: @AP Thanks for proving your ignorance yet again. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT 100 Words "He is a realist on Soviet achievements, crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks"

Dammit. I miss the "confiscate and divide" stuff.

How are the NatBolos doing these days? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

Bolsheviks looted the country.

I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .

You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.

So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia

"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Read More Agree: Mr. Hack Replies: @Mr. Hack Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis? , @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this... , @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. , @utu "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig


You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. Thanks for proving your ignorance yet again. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Mr. Hack says: August 11, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis? Read More Replies: @AP


Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?
https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT 200 Words @AP

Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this Read More Replies: @AP


You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?
I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference - unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure - in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.


There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina
Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters - Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system - were "real Communists." , @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Igor says: August 11, 2017 at 5:24 pm GMT Google wants to be
Ein Land
Ein Volk
Ein Führer Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT @Mr. Hack Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?

Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Read More Replies: @Mr. Hack Looks interesting. The one in Minneapolis is a 3 floor renovated church devoted to Russian art. Lots of Soviet Realism on display and occasional films too. They even had an exhibition of Aleksander Bulavitsky's art on display a couple of years ago, a local Ukrainian emigre that I've mentioned to you before (his work can be seen in Kyiv too). Several years back they had an impressive collection of religious art including icons and frescoes from as far back as the 14th century, many pieces from the northeast part of Russia. A philalately exhibit of Russian stamps that I once saw there was quite impressive too. If you're in the area, I recommend that you give it a visit. A nice gift shop too.
http://tmora.org/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT 400 Words @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this...

You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?

I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference – unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure – in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.

There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina

Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters – Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system – were "real Communists." Read More Agree: Mr. Hack , utu Replies: @Sergey Krieger 1990 not the best time frankly. How is western middle class is doing now? Again, you ignored my points and continued pressing own agenda. Soviet people basically were free, provided with all things necessary for fullfilling, happy and protected life which cost them nothing, while western middle class producing outword looks of prosperity was actually I'll iving life of stress, uncertainty and unhappiness. Hence, how is western middle class doing now? Up to nostrils in debt to mantain illusion of prosperity with no room for mistake. Many are no longer middle class. 50 million in USA alone on food help. Drud and various psycho meds in use to just get sort of temporary relief. What price one would put on having what we had? I would say it is priceless. After 1985 fifth column took control of CPSU central commity and top media. What was after 1986 hardly can be called Soviet Union , same as providing lines in stores in 1991 is not representation of what we really had before government Gorbachov and his inner cycle destabilized and destroyed my country. Without Gorbachov there would be no Yeltsin who was nothing but opportunist of the worst kind. To be fair comparison should be made for Brezhnev period which was the most prosperous time Russia ever seen and things were going in right direction before unworthy people without abilities and merit took over the power. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Read More Replies: @German_reader Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. , @Anatoly Karlin This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120331_EUC844.png

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. , @utu Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970's. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 11, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT 200 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. Read More Replies: @Darin East German Stasi spying on 1/3 of population was German efficiency run amok, objectively useless waste or resources. It made no difference at all for the survival of the regime.
In Czechoslovakia, next door country with comparable size population, the secret police watched about 60,000 people (i.e. VIP's and active dissidents), and it lasted about week longer than DDR. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 6:36 pm GMT 100 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. Read More Replies: @Hector_St_Clare Anatoly,

The "55-57% of west german GDP/capita by 1989" numbers I'm using (which are the also the ones used by the Wikipedia on the GDR) come from the former East German statistician Gerhard Heske in a 2009 study. The actual study is in German so I can't read it (maybe German Reader might be interested), but his numbers have been cited by a bunch of other papers I found which were quite critical of the GDR but didn't really take issue with his numbers. The reason people disagree about the size of the GDR economy in 1989 is, I think, because they weren't a market economy and so there was no way of assigning market values to the products they produced, other than by making 'quality adjustments' which are going to somewhat of a judgment call. Heske claims his methodology uses quality adjustments that are fairly standard, though.

Your series also starts in 1991 rather than 1989. It's worth pointing out that this fairly balanced treatment of German reunification by a Polish author both cites Heske's numbers for the 1989 GDP and also claims that in 1990 the East German economy was hit by severe recession as a result of excessively fast free market reforms and collapse of the central planning mechanism, and that GDP shrank "by at least 20% compared to the previous year." Of course an assessment of the East German economy in 1991 will look worse than it did in 1989, so that accounts for part though not all of the discrepancy.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_35_en_0.pdf Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 6:50 pm GMT 200 Words @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this...

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. Read More Replies: @iffen unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment." , @Andrei Martyanov


The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me--last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be? , @AP

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Looting one's own country's cultural treasures to finance a violent overthrow. Sounds familiar. I suspect that if some of these Commie apologists had been born as Sunni Arabs rather than Russians, they would be defending ISIS. , @Andrei Martyanov

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.
Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yIpW5BAQdSg/V7-AEA1H8HI/AAAAAAAAAiE/djQ8BHM4Zss5P7vm81DeWZFjy6b7UENwACLcB/s1600/9th%2BGrade.jpg


The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.
Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. , @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Mr. Hack says: August 11, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?
https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Looks interesting. The one in Minneapolis is a 3 floor renovated church devoted to Russian art. Lots of Soviet Realism on display and occasional films too. They even had an exhibition of Aleksander Bulavitsky's art on display a couple of years ago, a local Ukrainian emigre that I've mentioned to you before (his work can be seen in Kyiv too). Several years back they had an impressive collection of religious art including icons and frescoes from as far back as the 14th century, many pieces from the northeast part of Russia. A philalately exhibit of Russian stamps that I once saw there was quite impressive too. If you're in the area, I recommend that you give it a visit. A nice gift shop too.

http://tmora.org/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Fidelios Automata says: August 11, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT @Greg Bacon This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.

It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.

It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most of the music business, letting artists--mostly rap--sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.

After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change, but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty. Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over. Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment." Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."
True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness. Once one begins to look at the real estate dynamics, even for a good earners living in such places as Seattle, Portland (not to speak of L.A. or SF) becomes simply not affordable, forget buying anything decent. Hell, many rents are higher than actual mortgages, however insane they already are. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me–last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be? Read More Replies: @AP


Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".
Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

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

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise -

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT 100 Words @iffen unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."

Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."

True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness. Once one begins to look at the real estate dynamics, even for a good earners living in such places as Seattle, Portland (not to speak of L.A. or SF) becomes simply not affordable, forget buying anything decent. Hell, many rents are higher than actual mortgages, however insane they already are. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Looting one's own country's cultural treasures to finance a violent overthrow. Sounds familiar. I suspect that if some of these Commie apologists had been born as Sunni Arabs rather than Russians, they would be defending ISIS. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 8:54 pm GMT 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov


The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me--last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be?

Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".

Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

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

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise –

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


Yes, they did not run out
But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it--you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s--I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"--most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"--not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning--nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev--a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this--by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. , @Darin This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930's certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT 200 Words @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.

Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin We've been through this . :)


The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)
It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.
Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT 200 Words @AP


Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".
Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

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

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise -

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery.

Yes, they did not run out

But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it–you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s–I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"–most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"–not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning–nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev–a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this–by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. Read More Replies: @iffen what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.) , @Anonymous So how much of a hold did Jews have over the Soviet Union? There's a lot of propaganda on the Net pushing the story that they were running the show entirely. Where should I look to find the truth? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT 300 Words @Anatoly Karlin This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120331_EUC844.png

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. Anatoly,

The "55-57% of west german GDP/capita by 1989″ numbers I'm using (which are the also the ones used by the Wikipedia on the GDR) come from the former East German statistician Gerhard Heske in a 2009 study. The actual study is in German so I can't read it (maybe German Reader might be interested), but his numbers have been cited by a bunch of other papers I found which were quite critical of the GDR but didn't really take issue with his numbers. The reason people disagree about the size of the GDR economy in 1989 is, I think, because they weren't a market economy and so there was no way of assigning market values to the products they produced, other than by making 'quality adjustments' which are going to somewhat of a judgment call. Heske claims his methodology uses quality adjustments that are fairly standard, though.

Your series also starts in 1991 rather than 1989. It's worth pointing out that this fairly balanced treatment of German reunification by a Polish author both cites Heske's numbers for the 1989 GDP and also claims that in 1990 the East German economy was hit by severe recession as a result of excessively fast free market reforms and collapse of the central planning mechanism, and that GDP shrank "by at least 20% compared to the previous year." Of course an assessment of the East German economy in 1991 will look worse than it did in 1989, so that accounts for part though not all of the discrepancy.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_35_en_0.pdf Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT That being said, "(slightly) faster GDP growth rate than West Germany" isn't as impressive as it sounds since they were starting from a much lower base: an economy 40% as rich per capita as West Germany, with an industrial base and educated/skilled workforce, *should* be growing much faster, not slightly faster. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov


Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.
Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yIpW5BAQdSg/V7-AEA1H8HI/AAAAAAAAAiE/djQ8BHM4Zss5P7vm81DeWZFjy6b7UENwACLcB/s1600/9th%2BGrade.jpg


The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.
Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. We've been through this .

The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)

It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.

Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow. Read More Replies: @inertial Skanavi was used in elite math schools but those problems are far from Skanavi. These are precisely the kind of problems we were doing in my non-elite prole school. I remember them.

What percentage of schoolchildren could solve problems like that? Great majority, after some training. They are not that hard. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT @Andrei Martyanov


Yes, they did not run out
But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it--you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s--I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"--most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"--not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning--nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev--a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this--by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.) Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


So you are a socialist at heart?
No, I am economic realist, which is more mixed economy vector but for Russia specifically--it could be called as "socialist". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 11, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Read More Replies: @German_reader There's a book by McMeekin about this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Historys-Greatest-Heist-Looting-Bolsheviks/dp/0300135580/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

(no idea how good it is, haven't read it myself, and McMeekin seems to be somewhat controversial). , @Darin Sean McMeekin: History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/116/1/246/43921/Sean-McMeekin-History-s-Greatest-Heist-The-Looting , @Anatoly Karlin Yes, I was going to mention Sean McMeekin as well.

Apart from the book which two people here have already referenced, he recently published a history of the Russian revolution which incorporates his research on the art looting. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT @iffen what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.)

So you are a socialist at heart?

No, I am economic realist, which is more mixed economy vector but for Russia specifically–it could be called as "socialist". Read More Agree: Sergey Krieger Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:04 pm GMT 100 Words

Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

LOL, sure–when Taiwan or Belgium will have a viable space programs (the list of cutting edge technologies which goes into this is colossal, not to mention educational and design schools) or will be able to produce something remotely comparable to MS-21 or SU-57, then we may talk. FYI, I work in aerospace industry so, let's put it this way–I never heard superlatives about Belgian or Taiwanese Aerospace . The "other" one? A lot. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
utu says: August 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT 100 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970′s. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Read More Replies: @Hector_St_Clare Czechoslovakia is interesting: both halves made the transition to modern capitalism without all that much increase in inequality. Czechoslovakia was the second least economically unequal country in the world before 1989 (the GDR was lowest) and the Czech Republic is second or third least unequal country today.

Hungary was doing pretty well from 1968-1989 based on the economic growth data I've been able to find (although less well than their great years from roughly 2000-2007 or so). The graph I found barely showed any inflection around 1989 at all. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".
Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

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

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise -

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery. This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930′s certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington? Read More Replies: @DNC A country should be able to manufacture trains and tractors without the need to finance them through sales of priceless works of art. Only a completely bankrupt ideology would consider peddling Rembrandt for tractor parts as "reasonable and praiseworthy" Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 11, 2017 at 11:16 pm GMT @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans
You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL! ;-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:26 pm GMT @utu "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke.

But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans

You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL! Read More Replies: @iffen I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 11, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT 100 Words @German_reader Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. East German Stasi spying on 1/3 of population was German efficiency run amok, objectively useless waste or resources. It made no difference at all for the survival of the regime.
In Czechoslovakia, next door country with comparable size population, the secret police watched about 60,000 people (i.e. VIP's and active dissidents), and it lasted about week longer than DDR. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 11, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. There's a book by McMeekin about this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Historys-Greatest-Heist-Looting-Bolsheviks/dp/0300135580/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

(no idea how good it is, haven't read it myself, and McMeekin seems to be somewhat controversial). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 11, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Sean McMeekin: History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/116/1/246/43921/Sean-McMeekin-History-s-Greatest-Heist-The-Looting Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT @Andrei Martyanov


But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans
You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL! ;-) I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.
What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law--this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

https://youtu.be/Lrle0x_DHBM

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:57 pm GMT 200 Words @iffen I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.

What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law–this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-) Read More Replies: @iffen ? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT @Andrei Martyanov


She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.
What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law--this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

https://youtu.be/Lrle0x_DHBM

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-) ? Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


?
OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore--anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it--I underscore it again, they all knew it--among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"--it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement--a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony--being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it Website August 12, 2017 at 12:45 am GMT 200 Words @iffen ?

?

OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore–anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it–I underscore it again, they all knew it–among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"–it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement–a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony–being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it, by Tuesday I hope to know ) I elaborate there on this issue. The reason you cannot understand me is precisely a complete ignorance in US on the Soviet realities of 1970s and 198os. Read More LOL: Sergey Krieger Replies: @iffen Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.) , @Sergey Krieger Irony definition is very subtle. My heard hurts. I would definitely prefer to have some sense of humor to reading the said definitions. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
inertial says: August 12, 2017 at 12:50 am GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin We've been through this . :)


The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)
It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.
Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow. Skanavi was used in elite math schools but those problems are far from Skanavi. These are precisely the kind of problems we were doing in my non-elite prole school. I remember them.

What percentage of schoolchildren could solve problems like that? Great majority, after some training. They are not that hard. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


They are not that hard.
In Soviet NON-elite schools trigonometric identities were solved very often for fun and on speed among students. However, today's (and yesterday's) entrance exams problems in Math or Physics for such institutions like MGTU, MGU or MAI, among many others, may put some MIT undergraduate students in stupor. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 1:00 am GMT 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov

?
OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore--anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it--I underscore it again, they all knew it--among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"--it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement--a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony--being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it, by Tuesday I hope to know ) I elaborate there on this issue. The reason you cannot understand me is precisely a complete ignorance in US on the Soviet realities of 1970s and 198os. Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.) Read More Replies: @German_reader


She was a big deal.
Also in East Germany, they made a big deal of American racism and campaigned for Davis' freedom (kind of funny for a state that just shot citizens attempting to leave). I just googled her...apparently she's still spewing her poison among German lefties and campaigning for the rights of "refugees".
The West was too soft and liberal during the Cold war, much harsher measures should have been taken against subversives. , @Anon

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

Google her name

Google
You too belong in the Goolag. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 12, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT 100 Words @inertial Skanavi was used in elite math schools but those problems are far from Skanavi. These are precisely the kind of problems we were doing in my non-elite prole school. I remember them.

What percentage of schoolchildren could solve problems like that? Great majority, after some training. They are not that hard.

They are not that hard.

In Soviet NON-elite schools trigonometric identities were solved very often for fun and on speed among students. However, today's (and yesterday's) entrance exams problems in Math or Physics for such institutions like MGTU, MGU or MAI, among many others, may put some MIT undergraduate students in stupor. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 1:15 am GMT 100 Words @iffen Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.)

She was a big deal.

Also in East Germany, they made a big deal of American racism and campaigned for Davis' freedom (kind of funny for a state that just shot citizens attempting to leave). I just googled her apparently she's still spewing her poison among German lefties and campaigning for the rights of "refugees".
The West was too soft and liberal during the Cold war, much harsher measures should have been taken against subversives. Read More Replies: @iffen I have assumed that you are (were) West German. How could you know what was a big deal in E. Germany in the 60's? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 1:23 am GMT @German_reader


She was a big deal.
Also in East Germany, they made a big deal of American racism and campaigned for Davis' freedom (kind of funny for a state that just shot citizens attempting to leave). I just googled her...apparently she's still spewing her poison among German lefties and campaigning for the rights of "refugees".
The West was too soft and liberal during the Cold war, much harsher measures should have been taken against subversives. I have assumed that you are (were) West German. How could you know what was a big deal in E. Germany in the 60′s? Read More Replies: @German_reader I wasn't referring to personal experience (which in this case I'm much too young for anyway); but it's well-known that the East Germans in the early 1970s had a really huge solidarity campaign for Angela Davis. She visited there several times in the 1970s and 1980s, being greeted by mass rallies. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT 100 Words @iffen I have assumed that you are (were) West German. How could you know what was a big deal in E. Germany in the 60's? I wasn't referring to personal experience (which in this case I'm much too young for anyway); but it's well-known that the East Germans in the early 1970s had a really huge solidarity campaign for Angela Davis. She visited there several times in the 1970s and 1980s, being greeted by mass rallies. Read More Replies: @Darin Of course you know that people on mass rallies were there cheering because they were brought there and told to cheer, without knowing and caring what are they cheering for. Angela Davis might fall for the charade, but you sure know better. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 12, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT 100 Words @utu Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970's. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Czechoslovakia is interesting: both halves made the transition to modern capitalism without all that much increase in inequality. Czechoslovakia was the second least economically unequal country in the world before 1989 (the GDR was lowest) and the Czech Republic is second or third least unequal country today.

Hungary was doing pretty well from 1968-1989 based on the economic growth data I've been able to find (although less well than their great years from roughly 2000-2007 or so). The graph I found barely showed any inflection around 1989 at all. Read More Replies: @utu Hungary was doing well under Kadar's goulash communism. And Czechs always were doing well. They had the best industrial base, a leftover of Austro-Hungarian empire. Better than Austria. Before WWII standards of living in Bohemia and Moravia part were one of the highest in Europe.

During communism they had one of the highest rates of summer homes (dacha- often just a shack) in Europe. They have and always had the lowest religiosity in Europe.

They clearly have pretty smart and well connected to centers of power in the West political elites. They were the only country in Europe that not only avoided fighting against Hitler but also for Hitler unlike Hungary. The occupation by Germany there was the mildest because there was zero resistance. They seem to be one of the most pragmatic nations. They unlike Poles can't be manipulated by invocation of honor and other imponderabilia. They will not resits but then they may take awful revenge for the indignity they suffered by not resisting. So watch your back when they regain power as Germans have found out in 1945.

After 1989 they did not fall for neoliberalism scam that lead to deindustrialization which happened to Poland and Hungary. Hungary managed to snap out of it under Orban or at least is trying. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 12, 2017 at 2:17 am GMT @German_reader I wasn't referring to personal experience (which in this case I'm much too young for anyway); but it's well-known that the East Germans in the early 1970s had a really huge solidarity campaign for Angela Davis. She visited there several times in the 1970s and 1980s, being greeted by mass rallies. Of course you know that people on mass rallies were there cheering because they were brought there and told to cheer, without knowing and caring what are they cheering for. Angela Davis might fall for the charade, but you sure know better. Read More Replies: @German_reader That's a good point, though I suppose at least a few of the people at the rallies did buy the official propaganda (there was a non-trivial number of true believers in the GDR).
But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause...which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 2:23 am GMT 100 Words @Darin Of course you know that people on mass rallies were there cheering because they were brought there and told to cheer, without knowing and caring what are they cheering for. Angela Davis might fall for the charade, but you sure know better. That's a good point, though I suppose at least a few of the people at the rallies did buy the official propaganda (there was a non-trivial number of true believers in the GDR).
But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion. Read More Replies: @iffen But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion.

There was "authentic enthusiasm" for Davis and others like her in the US and the elite fear was authentic. She failed to bring her first love, communism, to the US, but seems happy enough toiling for the elite now. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 12, 2017 at 2:41 am GMT 200 Words @Hector_St_Clare Czechoslovakia is interesting: both halves made the transition to modern capitalism without all that much increase in inequality. Czechoslovakia was the second least economically unequal country in the world before 1989 (the GDR was lowest) and the Czech Republic is second or third least unequal country today.

Hungary was doing pretty well from 1968-1989 based on the economic growth data I've been able to find (although less well than their great years from roughly 2000-2007 or so). The graph I found barely showed any inflection around 1989 at all. Hungary was doing well under Kadar's goulash communism. And Czechs always were doing well. They had the best industrial base, a leftover of Austro-Hungarian empire. Better than Austria. Before WWII standards of living in Bohemia and Moravia part were one of the highest in Europe.

During communism they had one of the highest rates of summer homes (dacha- often just a shack) in Europe. They have and always had the lowest religiosity in Europe.

They clearly have pretty smart and well connected to centers of power in the West political elites. They were the only country in Europe that not only avoided fighting against Hitler but also for Hitler unlike Hungary. The occupation by Germany there was the mildest because there was zero resistance. They seem to be one of the most pragmatic nations. They unlike Poles can't be manipulated by invocation of honor and other imponderabilia. They will not resits but then they may take awful revenge for the indignity they suffered by not resisting. So watch your back when they regain power as Germans have found out in 1945.

After 1989 they did not fall for neoliberalism scam that lead to deindustrialization which happened to Poland and Hungary. Hungary managed to snap out of it under Orban or at least is trying. Read More Replies: @JL This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
7.62mm says: August 12, 2017 at 2:49 am GMT A Goggle search of "No Such Agency" used to direct its first hit to: https://www.nsa.gov/

Your mileage may vary. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 12, 2017 at 6:06 am GMT @Andrei Martyanov


Yes, they did not run out
But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it--you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s--I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"--most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"--not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning--nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev--a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this--by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. So how much of a hold did Jews have over the Soviet Union? There's a lot of propaganda on the Net pushing the story that they were running the show entirely. Where should I look to find the truth? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 12, 2017 at 6:35 am GMT @iffen Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.)

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

Google her name

Google

You too belong in the Goolag. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
DNC says: August 12, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT @Darin This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930's certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington? A country should be able to manufacture trains and tractors without the need to finance them through sales of priceless works of art. Only a completely bankrupt ideology would consider peddling Rembrandt for tractor parts as "reasonable and praiseworthy" Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 8:33 am GMT @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Yes, I was going to mention Sean McMeekin as well.

Apart from the book which two people here have already referenced, he recently published a history of the Russian revolution which incorporates his research on the art looting. Read More Replies: @utu Thanks. I will look it up.

Is this Игорь Бунич. Золото партии by Bunich any good? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
JL says: August 12, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT @utu Hungary was doing well under Kadar's goulash communism. And Czechs always were doing well. They had the best industrial base, a leftover of Austro-Hungarian empire. Better than Austria. Before WWII standards of living in Bohemia and Moravia part were one of the highest in Europe.

During communism they had one of the highest rates of summer homes (dacha- often just a shack) in Europe. They have and always had the lowest religiosity in Europe.

They clearly have pretty smart and well connected to centers of power in the West political elites. They were the only country in Europe that not only avoided fighting against Hitler but also for Hitler unlike Hungary. The occupation by Germany there was the mildest because there was zero resistance. They seem to be one of the most pragmatic nations. They unlike Poles can't be manipulated by invocation of honor and other imponderabilia. They will not resits but then they may take awful revenge for the indignity they suffered by not resisting. So watch your back when they regain power as Germans have found out in 1945.

After 1989 they did not fall for neoliberalism scam that lead to deindustrialization which happened to Poland and Hungary. Hungary managed to snap out of it under Orban or at least is trying. This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Read More Replies: @Anon Novels are not history, certainly not military farces regarding the history of industrialization. , @utu Actually, I read The Good Soldier Svejk several times. But what exactly in my comment does not jive with the image of Czechs you got from Svejk? How much more you now about Czechs beyond Svejk?

Is this very Svejkian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn5vHIKSlAk Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT 200 Words Leaving aside the fact that I am apparently too dense to get AM's Angela Davis joke, I want to tell my own.

In the 60's the ruling elite feared Russia, communism, socialism and black rebellion and most of all they feared that Russia would catch the wave of those movements for a long and successful ride. Angela Davis was viewed as a mortal threat by the elite because of her ideology and politics and its promotion. Governor Ronald Reagan tried to get her fired from her academic position in California. During this time she scrapped along on fellowships, internships and academic positions secured for her by fellow travelers, not to mention contributions of leftist organizations partially or wholly funded by Russia. The ruling elite made sure that everyone, and I mean everyone, knew that Angela Davis was a real threat.

Today, like an aging rock star, she scrapes along on speaker fees.

Okay, now the punch line.

She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah. The ruling elite no longer fears socialism. They no longer fear black rebellion, in fact, that have co-opted black rebellion and manipulate it for their own benefit and purposes.

Yet, they are still deathly afraid of Russia. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin


She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah.
https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/896235475853357060 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT 100 Words @German_reader That's a good point, though I suppose at least a few of the people at the rallies did buy the official propaganda (there was a non-trivial number of true believers in the GDR).
But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause...which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion. But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion.

There was "authentic enthusiasm" for Davis and others like her in the US and the elite fear was authentic. She failed to bring her first love, communism, to the US, but seems happy enough toiling for the elite now. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT @iffen Leaving aside the fact that I am apparently too dense to get AM's Angela Davis joke, I want to tell my own.

In the 60's the ruling elite feared Russia, communism, socialism and black rebellion and most of all they feared that Russia would catch the wave of those movements for a long and successful ride. Angela Davis was viewed as a mortal threat by the elite because of her ideology and politics and its promotion. Governor Ronald Reagan tried to get her fired from her academic position in California. During this time she scrapped along on fellowships, internships and academic positions secured for her by fellow travelers, not to mention contributions of leftist organizations partially or wholly funded by Russia. The ruling elite made sure that everyone, and I mean everyone, knew that Angela Davis was a real threat.

Today, like an aging rock star, she scrapes along on speaker fees.

Okay, now the punch line.

She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah. The ruling elite no longer fears socialism. They no longer fear black rebellion, in fact, that have co-opted black rebellion and manipulate it for their own benefit and purposes.

Yet, they are still deathly afraid of Russia.

She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah.

hey FASCISTS

Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 12, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT @JL This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Novels are not history, certainly not military farces regarding the history of industrialization. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sowhat says: August 12, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT 100 Words @Alden Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.

If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center, close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive and legislative branches.

Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky treated the Russian counterrevolution.
I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.

I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it.

I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

Guilty as charged As many immature, uneducated Whites in the sixties, I too was played like a fiddle. If I only knew then what I know now Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT 100 Words @nickels This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
There is little point arguing from a 'common sense' stance against the leftists.
This is war, not an argument.

Liberalism must be destroyed.

This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.

I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist.
Nor is he an "intellectual"--ability to use many big words, and "knowing" Heidegger, in demagoguery is not a sign of anything other than of being extremely full of sh.t. Which is precisely the case with Dugin. Having said all that--ANY discussion on Russia's history without profound knowledge of the warfare is a waste of time. Without it--it is already Gabriel Charmes' and Jeune Ecole all over again. Averchenko has a superb (I use it often) short story The Specialist In Military Affairs. Applies here across the board (with some minor exceptions). Actually, Edik Limonov has a superb expose on Dugin. , @ussr andy

He even denies the concept of race.
last thing Russia needs is a cold race war (not to be confused with cold war race, lol), like in America. IMO. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 12, 2017 at 4:29 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin Yes, I was going to mention Sean McMeekin as well.

Apart from the book which two people here have already referenced, he recently published a history of the Russian revolution which incorporates his research on the art looting. Thanks. I will look it up.

Is this Игорь Бунич. Золото партии by Bunich any good? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 12, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin


This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre.

I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist.

Nor is he an "intellectual"–ability to use many big words, and "knowing" Heidegger, in demagoguery is not a sign of anything other than of being extremely full of sh.t. Which is precisely the case with Dugin. Having said all that–ANY discussion on Russia's history without profound knowledge of the warfare is a waste of time. Without it–it is already Gabriel Charmes' and Jeune Ecole all over again. Averchenko has a superb (I use it often) short story The Specialist In Military Affairs. Applies here across the board (with some minor exceptions). Actually, Edik Limonov has a superb expose on Dugin. Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger But he got the beard! The beard you see. Just like Solzhenicin. It looks like every hack thinks that adding beard increases one's credibility. Correlation is unmistakable . Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT 200 Words @AP


You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?
I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference - unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure - in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.


There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina
Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters - Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system - were "real Communists." 1990 not the best time frankly. How is western middle class is doing now? Again, you ignored my points and continued pressing own agenda. Soviet people basically were free, provided with all things necessary for fullfilling, happy and protected life which cost them nothing, while western middle class producing outword looks of prosperity was actually I'll iving life of stress, uncertainty and unhappiness. Hence, how is western middle class doing now? Up to nostrils in debt to mantain illusion of prosperity with no room for mistake. Many are no longer middle class. 50 million in USA alone on food help. Drud and various psycho meds in use to just get sort of temporary relief. What price one would put on having what we had? I would say it is priceless. After 1985 fifth column took control of CPSU central commity and top media. What was after 1986 hardly can be called Soviet Union , same as providing lines in stores in 1991 is not representation of what we really had before government Gorbachov and his inner cycle destabilized and destroyed my country. Without Gorbachov there would be no Yeltsin who was nothing but opportunist of the worst kind. To be fair comparison should be made for Brezhnev period which was the most prosperous time Russia ever seen and things were going in right direction before unworthy people without abilities and merit took over the power. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 12, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT @JL This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Actually, I read The Good Soldier Svejk several times. But what exactly in my comment does not jive with the image of Czechs you got from Svejk? How much more you now about Czechs beyond Svejk?

Is this very Svejkian?

Read More Replies: @German_reader Interesting...I have a negative opinion of the BBC on the whole, but sometimes they produce surprisingly frank documentaries about WW2 issues. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT @utu Actually, I read The Good Soldier Svejk several times. But what exactly in my comment does not jive with the image of Czechs you got from Svejk? How much more you now about Czechs beyond Svejk?

Is this very Svejkian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn5vHIKSlAk Interesting I have a negative opinion of the BBC on the whole, but sometimes they produce surprisingly frank documentaries about WW2 issues. Read More Agree: Dan Hayes Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 12, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT @Andrei Martyanov


I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist.
Nor is he an "intellectual"--ability to use many big words, and "knowing" Heidegger, in demagoguery is not a sign of anything other than of being extremely full of sh.t. Which is precisely the case with Dugin. Having said all that--ANY discussion on Russia's history without profound knowledge of the warfare is a waste of time. Without it--it is already Gabriel Charmes' and Jeune Ecole all over again. Averchenko has a superb (I use it often) short story The Specialist In Military Affairs. Applies here across the board (with some minor exceptions). Actually, Edik Limonov has a superb expose on Dugin. But he got the beard! The beard you see. Just like Solzhenicin. It looks like every hack thinks that adding beard increases one's credibility. Correlation is unmistakable . Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Anatoly Karlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPlpRMg8TY Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger But he got the beard! The beard you see. Just like Solzhenicin. It looks like every hack thinks that adding beard increases one's credibility. Correlation is unmistakable . Read More Replies: @Serge Krieger https://youtu.be/D1r3MDIhon8 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 12, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin

This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre.

He even denies the concept of race.

last thing Russia needs is a cold race war (not to be confused with cold war race, lol), like in America. IMO. Read More Agree: utu Replies: @Anatoly Karlin If you wish to worship an anti-scientific multikulti promoting nutcase who has successfully marketed himself to the dimmer Western radicals (nobody in Russia itself cares about Dugin), then be my guest, but I'm more interested in facts and reality. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 13, 2017 at 12:47 am GMT @Andrei Martyanov


?
OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore--anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it--I underscore it again, they all knew it--among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"--it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement--a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony--being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it, by Tuesday I hope to know ) I elaborate there on this issue. The reason you cannot understand me is precisely a complete ignorance in US on the Soviet realities of 1970s and 198os. Irony definition is very subtle. My heard hurts. I would definitely prefer to have some sense of humor to reading the said definitions. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Serge Krieger says: August 13, 2017 at 1:20 am GMT @Anatoly Karlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPlpRMg8TY Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 13, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT @ussr andy


He even denies the concept of race.
last thing Russia needs is a cold race war (not to be confused with cold war race, lol), like in America. IMO. If you wish to worship an anti-scientific multikulti promoting nutcase who has successfully marketed himself to the dimmer Western radicals (nobody in Russia itself cares about Dugin), then be my guest, but I'm more interested in facts and reality. Read More Replies: @ussr andy um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.

I'm more interested in facts and reality.
ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin If you wish to worship an anti-scientific multikulti promoting nutcase who has successfully marketed himself to the dimmer Western radicals (nobody in Russia itself cares about Dugin), then be my guest, but I'm more interested in facts and reality. um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.

I'm more interested in facts and reality.

ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony. Read More Replies: @ussr andy


American hang-ups
I don't know why Dugin even went there. That'd be like an American taking a stand on Russo-Chukchi internal relations.

What about Russia needs the concept of race with all the attendant baggage, rather than, say, ethnicity? , @utu I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

Absolutely. This is Anglo-American construct. Being white it was something Southerners talked about. This construct was foreign to normal Europeans who were not slave drivers. 19 century European immigrants to America did not have racial identity. Most of Europeans still do not have racial identity. But this will change with the influx of immigrants if the influx continues. Just as it changed for Irish, Italian and Polish ethnic neighborhoods in Northern cities when they became forcefully integrated and Blacks started moving because of various government housing programs. See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing."

Unfortunately Karlin got infected with this toxic heresy of race. Are we suppose to be learning from the slave drivers? We in cultures and countries who never practiced it? No, we do not need their racial identity constructs. The emphasis should be on the traditional ethnic and national culture and the fact some groups are not assimilable because of their incompatible cultures. Your culture is your true and the only identity. You are who you are because of your culture and not because of your race. Race does not make you into anything.

Most importantly Blacks can't assimilate not because of what is under their skin or in their head (like low IQ) but because of their skin color. Yes, it is simple like that. To assimilate you must start practicing mimicry. Mimicry is the most critical part of assimilation. That's why Jews were successful in assimilating into Western societies and cultures. They were like other, like majority or at least pretended to be and others could be fooled by it. Blacks cannot do it. Blacks can never forget they are black. And you can't forget they are black. Thus the mimicry is impossible. So there will always be otherness and separateness. Yes, it is skin deep but it is enough. And with otherness and separateness a harmonious society is not possible. The reason that Blacks are a problem in America is because they are black and not because they have low IQ. There is equally large if not larger white sub-population in the US with as low IQ like Blacks. You could call them Wiggers. But this sub-population is integrated. And Blacks cannot integrate because their skin color is black which forces them to have separate identity and sub-culture. Karlin and his mentors in Ulster Institute and Pioneer Fund can shove their IQ bs up theirs. This is not about racial IQ. It is about skin color. The bottom line is to stop letting people who are different then you into your country. America is too far gone. The birth defect of slavery won't be erased. Russia also pays or will pay for its imperial appetites when it swallowed too many other peoples. Actually she already paid for swallowing Poland in 18 century with its poison pill, the Jews that gave her the hecatomb of Bolshevik revolution from which she has never recovered. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 13, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT @ussr andy um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.


I'm more interested in facts and reality.
ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

American hang-ups

I don't know why Dugin even went there. That'd be like an American taking a stand on Russo-Chukchi internal relations.

What about Russia needs the concept of race with all the attendant baggage, rather than, say, ethnicity? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 14, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT 500 Words @ussr andy um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.


I'm more interested in facts and reality.
ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony. I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

Absolutely. This is Anglo-American construct. Being white it was something Southerners talked about. This construct was foreign to normal Europeans who were not slave drivers. 19 century European immigrants to America did not have racial identity. Most of Europeans still do not have racial identity. But this will change with the influx of immigrants if the influx continues. Just as it changed for Irish, Italian and Polish ethnic neighborhoods in Northern cities when they became forcefully integrated and Blacks started moving because of various government housing programs. See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing."

Unfortunately Karlin got infected with this toxic heresy of race. Are we suppose to be learning from the slave drivers? We in cultures and countries who never practiced it? No, we do not need their racial identity constructs. The emphasis should be on the traditional ethnic and national culture and the fact some groups are not assimilable because of their incompatible cultures. Your culture is your true and the only identity. You are who you are because of your culture and not because of your race. Race does not make you into anything.

Most importantly Blacks can't assimilate not because of what is under their skin or in their head (like low IQ) but because of their skin color. Yes, it is simple like that. To assimilate you must start practicing mimicry. Mimicry is the most critical part of assimilation. That's why Jews were successful in assimilating into Western societies and cultures. They were like other, like majority or at least pretended to be and others could be fooled by it. Blacks cannot do it. Blacks can never forget they are black. And you can't forget they are black. Thus the mimicry is impossible. So there will always be otherness and separateness. Yes, it is skin deep but it is enough. And with otherness and separateness a harmonious society is not possible. The reason that Blacks are a problem in America is because they are black and not because they have low IQ. There is equally large if not larger white sub-population in the US with as low IQ like Blacks. You could call them Wiggers. But this sub-population is integrated. And Blacks cannot integrate because their skin color is black which forces them to have separate identity and sub-culture. Karlin and his mentors in Ulster Institute and Pioneer Fund can shove their IQ bs up theirs. This is not about racial IQ. It is about skin color. The bottom line is to stop letting people who are different then you into your country. America is too far gone. The birth defect of slavery won't be erased. Russia also pays or will pay for its imperial appetites when it swallowed too many other peoples. Actually she already paid for swallowing Poland in 18 century with its poison pill, the Jews that gave her the hecatomb of Bolshevik revolution from which she has never recovered. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin Drivel. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 14, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT @utu I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

Absolutely. This is Anglo-American construct. Being white it was something Southerners talked about. This construct was foreign to normal Europeans who were not slave drivers. 19 century European immigrants to America did not have racial identity. Most of Europeans still do not have racial identity. But this will change with the influx of immigrants if the influx continues. Just as it changed for Irish, Italian and Polish ethnic neighborhoods in Northern cities when they became forcefully integrated and Blacks started moving because of various government housing programs. See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing."

Unfortunately Karlin got infected with this toxic heresy of race. Are we suppose to be learning from the slave drivers? We in cultures and countries who never practiced it? No, we do not need their racial identity constructs. The emphasis should be on the traditional ethnic and national culture and the fact some groups are not assimilable because of their incompatible cultures. Your culture is your true and the only identity. You are who you are because of your culture and not because of your race. Race does not make you into anything.

Most importantly Blacks can't assimilate not because of what is under their skin or in their head (like low IQ) but because of their skin color. Yes, it is simple like that. To assimilate you must start practicing mimicry. Mimicry is the most critical part of assimilation. That's why Jews were successful in assimilating into Western societies and cultures. They were like other, like majority or at least pretended to be and others could be fooled by it. Blacks cannot do it. Blacks can never forget they are black. And you can't forget they are black. Thus the mimicry is impossible. So there will always be otherness and separateness. Yes, it is skin deep but it is enough. And with otherness and separateness a harmonious society is not possible. The reason that Blacks are a problem in America is because they are black and not because they have low IQ. There is equally large if not larger white sub-population in the US with as low IQ like Blacks. You could call them Wiggers. But this sub-population is integrated. And Blacks cannot integrate because their skin color is black which forces them to have separate identity and sub-culture. Karlin and his mentors in Ulster Institute and Pioneer Fund can shove their IQ bs up theirs. This is not about racial IQ. It is about skin color. The bottom line is to stop letting people who are different then you into your country. America is too far gone. The birth defect of slavery won't be erased. Russia also pays or will pay for its imperial appetites when it swallowed too many other peoples. Actually she already paid for swallowing Poland in 18 century with its poison pill, the Jews that gave her the hecatomb of Bolshevik revolution from which she has never recovered. Drivel. Read More Replies: @utu Drivel?

The IQ-ists like yourself underestimate the fact that separate identity formation and the persistence of this identity is not caused by IQ but by the external phenotype like a skin color. The separate racial identity groups will not dissolve into one even if there are no IQ differences between them. This is all about the external phenotype. We all heard since kindergarten that down below the skin we are all the same. The IQ-ists say it is no so, the IQ's are different but they agree with the kindergarten teacher that the skin color does not matter. But I say it does not matter whether we are the same or not under the skin. What really matters is what is on the surface not what is under the surface. What is on the surface is responsible for the separate identity creation, separate group and sub-culture creation and their persistence which leads to polarization resulting in reduced social harmony. In another words lots of problems that you do not need and that would never appeared in the society with a uniform external phenotype. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 15, 2017 at 5:37 pm GMT 200 Words @Anatoly Karlin Drivel. Drivel?

The IQ-ists like yourself underestimate the fact that separate identity formation and the persistence of this identity is not caused by IQ but by the external phenotype like a skin color. The separate racial identity groups will not dissolve into one even if there are no IQ differences between them. This is all about the external phenotype. We all heard since kindergarten that down below the skin we are all the same. The IQ-ists say it is no so, the IQ's are different but they agree with the kindergarten teacher that the skin color does not matter. But I say it does not matter whether we are the same or not under the skin. What really matters is what is on the surface not what is under the surface. What is on the surface is responsible for the separate identity creation, separate group and sub-culture creation and their persistence which leads to polarization resulting in reduced social harmony. In another words lots of problems that you do not need and that would never appeared in the society with a uniform external phenotype. Read More Replies: @sinotibetan Interesting comments. I agree with your observation. Even though it is possible that the mean IQs of different ethnic groups may indeed be different, it is the external phenotype that is one of the main determinants of "ethnic identity". Then followed by 'cultural traits' like language, customs etc. A blond Pole who learns to speak impeccable 'Queen's English' , changes his name to sound 'English' may assimilate so well that his foreign origin would probably never be suspected but for a Chinese like me, my "East Asian phenotype" gives away my foreign origin. On the other hand, if I learn Japanese ways to perfection, I might fool native Japanese I am one of them, but never can the Polish man do that.
I think the problem with many native "Western" Europeans(or rather their ruling and political elites) is that they are beholden (or perhaps envious of?) to the success of the USA as the lone superpower and its economic and technological might. More so with native 'Western' Europeans than Asians or Africans(although every nation cannot escape the ubiquitous American influence) because in their mind it was mostly 'white Americans' , kinsmen of their forefathers , who 'made' America as it is now. I think ideas like the European Union ('United States of Europe') and multiculturalism and the demonization of nationalism in Europe by the ruling elites may partially be explained by their desire to usurp American hegemony(by emulating the USA). Perhaps they actually believe losing their native identities and becoming multiethnic ( eg being 'European' regardless of ethnic origin or country of origin, European nations being reduced politically to like states within the USA) will make them rulers of a new superpower.
There is no exceptionalism for any nation...including the USA. It is a young nation in the process of (multiple) ethnogeneses, so happened it became the lone superpower and most influential nation. In the process is perhaps the ethnogenesis of a new ethnic group called 'Americans'(the melting pot/assimilation of 'whites'/ Hispanics/blacks/'Asians' in varying proportions) ...or will there be civil wars and internal strife within this group and other 'non-assimilated 'groups in future or breaking up into multiple 'nations' after internal strife..who knows?
I think the ruling elites and literati who associate American success with multiethnic society and blurring of traditional concepts of ethnic identity are making mistaken associations. The success of America is not because it is multiethnic or plural. Perhaps the reasons for America's success can be a topic of discussion - if Anatoly is keen on writing on the subject.
I think the multiculturalism and immigration of different ethnic groups into America is a recipe for ultimate internal strife and civilizational collapse in that nation as it has been throughout human history. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
treefroggy says: August 23, 2017 at 1:31 am GMT Is the fox supposed to represent to alternative browser Firefox ? If so , Firefox is just as sickeningly PC as Google , just far less competent . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
sinotibetan says: August 29, 2017 at 5:49 pm GMT 500 Words @utu Drivel?

The IQ-ists like yourself underestimate the fact that separate identity formation and the persistence of this identity is not caused by IQ but by the external phenotype like a skin color. The separate racial identity groups will not dissolve into one even if there are no IQ differences between them. This is all about the external phenotype. We all heard since kindergarten that down below the skin we are all the same. The IQ-ists say it is no so, the IQ's are different but they agree with the kindergarten teacher that the skin color does not matter. But I say it does not matter whether we are the same or not under the skin. What really matters is what is on the surface not what is under the surface. What is on the surface is responsible for the separate identity creation, separate group and sub-culture creation and their persistence which leads to polarization resulting in reduced social harmony. In another words lots of problems that you do not need and that would never appeared in the society with a uniform external phenotype. Interesting comments. I agree with your observation. Even though it is possible that the mean IQs of different ethnic groups may indeed be different, it is the external phenotype that is one of the main determinants of "ethnic identity". Then followed by 'cultural traits' like language, customs etc. A blond Pole who learns to speak impeccable 'Queen's English' , changes his name to sound 'English' may assimilate so well that his foreign origin would probably never be suspected but for a Chinese like me, my "East Asian phenotype" gives away my foreign origin. On the other hand, if I learn Japanese ways to perfection, I might fool native Japanese I am one of them, but never can the Polish man do that.
I think the problem with many native "Western" Europeans(or rather their ruling and political elites) is that they are beholden (or perhaps envious of?) to the success of the USA as the lone superpower and its economic and technological might. More so with native 'Western' Europeans than Asians or Africans(although every nation cannot escape the ubiquitous American influence) because in their mind it was mostly 'white Americans' , kinsmen of their forefathers , who 'made' America as it is now. I think ideas like the European Union ('United States of Europe') and multiculturalism and the demonization of nationalism in Europe by the ruling elites may partially be explained by their desire to usurp American hegemony(by emulating the USA). Perhaps they actually believe losing their native identities and becoming multiethnic ( eg being 'European' regardless of ethnic origin or country of origin, European nations being reduced politically to like states within the USA) will make them rulers of a new superpower.
There is no exceptionalism for any nation including the USA. It is a young nation in the process of (multiple) ethnogeneses, so happened it became the lone superpower and most influential nation. In the process is perhaps the ethnogenesis of a new ethnic group called 'Americans'(the melting pot/assimilation of 'whites'/ Hispanics/blacks/'Asians' in varying proportions) or will there be civil wars and internal strife within this group and other 'non-assimilated 'groups in future or breaking up into multiple 'nations' after internal strife..who knows?
I think the ruling elites and literati who associate American success with multiethnic society and blurring of traditional concepts of ethnic identity are making mistaken associations. The success of America is not because it is multiethnic or plural. Perhaps the reasons for America's success can be a topic of discussion – if Anatoly is keen on writing on the subject.
I think the multiculturalism and immigration of different ethnic groups into America is a recipe for ultimate internal strife and civilizational collapse in that nation as it has been throughout human history.

[Sep 23, 2018] One minute warning was a part of Israeli plan

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

The scalpel , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 8:04 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

.It all sounds like a pure Syrian IFF fuck-up, not an Israeli conjob.
When Powers was shot down in his U-2 over USSR, the other downed aircraft was Soviet Aviation of PVO MiG-17 (or 19--don't remember from the top of my head). A classic case of "friendly fire". Andrei, I have never seen you blow so much smoke or work so hard to quell emotions I guess it may be justified in doing what one can to stop WWIII. Maybe there are other reasons.

You are usually very careful to make sure that, in your writing, 2+2 = 4. This time, perhaps for the above reasons, not so much. You claim that most posts on this thread are emotional rants or trolls, yet you have spent most of your efforts trying to calm emotions and not addressing more serious flaws in the official story.

Harold Smith rightly pointed out that the F16s did not end up behind the IL20 by mistake. This was not some joy ride by the F16s. It was a well planned intentional operation. The Israelis knew the habits and capabilities of the IL20 and made plans accordingly using cover from the IL20 as their method to penetrate within the envelope of the S200s. The 1 minute warning was a part of that plan. Any more warning would have exposed the F16s to much more danger.

The Israelis knew a one minute warning was inadequate but gave it just for its value of plausible deniability. They probably expected the S200s to hold their fire but they had no way of being sure of that. Instead, they made an intentional plan, using the IL20 as cover and intentionally putting the IL20 at risk of shoot down in order to protect their F16s. The one minute warning was good for plausible deniability, nothing more.

Then we see Netanyahu rushing to de-escalate. The only thing he can plausibly say to Putin is that this was intentional but done without his knowledge or permission. To claim it was a "tragic error" is a joke. Would Putin believe that? Not likely. Thus we have a whole delegation flying to Moscow to attempt to bolster that argument.

Not that the political players give a damn about it, but Israel's actions here are blatant violations of international law, probably war crimes, and well, just plain immoral. But it is only regular guys like me that care about stuff like that.

[Sep 23, 2018] Let's put it this way, once Russians and Americans begin to kill each-other, Israel goes immediately down. In fact, it will cease to exist as a state. But who wants to pay such a price? Bibi knows that.

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 21, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMT

@VICB3 Please see VicB3 Comment above.

Thanks.

VicB3

-Israel has a history of false flag operations.

She does and this latest event could have been (with high degree of probability) precipitated by Russian-Turkey-Iranian arrangement on Idlib, because isolation of Israeli-friendly (or rather openly supported by her) most radical Islamic groups will happen and that means Israel losing one of her most important pieces of strategy of keeping ME destabilized. But then again–a good proof of effectiveness of Russia's actions in the area, isn't it? Good ol' classic cliche: the flak is heavy, that means we are over target.

-Israel has a fleet of quiet diesel-electric subs.

Yes, she does–German built.

-It has been shown that diesel electric subs have in the past easily come within striking distance of U.S. carriers.

True, even nukes (subs) have penetrated ASW "shield" and conducted lengthy trailing of CBGs many times.

-If Israel wanted to suck the United States into a shooting war in Syria, it would make sense to sink the Truman with one of it's subs, blaming in on Russia. The United States egged on by its NeoCon contingents and in a fit of emotionalism – think 9/11 – would almost certainly react before thinking.

Ahh, not quite. Recall what happened with Kursk, the first act of the United States was to have CIA Director be on the first flight to Moscow. No, it doesn't work like this and, I have suspicion that, however deplorable Israel's policies are, Israel proper intelligence and military people are on the order of magnitude smarter, however deviously, and calculating than American neocons most of whom are dumb as fvcks and good only in bribery and mass-media tantrums. Reaction of Israel in all this situation is the best proof.

-Of course, one something like this did happen, you'd have a war. And war is a wild thing that, once turned loose, does what it wants and is out of control.

Let's put it this way, once Russians and Americans begin to kill each-other, Israel goes immediately down. In fact, it will cease to exist as a state. But who wants to pay such a price? Bibi knows that.

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website September 22, 2018 at 9:05 pm GMT
@Erebus

Let's put it this way, once Russians and Americans begin to kill each-other, Israel goes immediately down. In fact, it will cease to exist as a state.
Can you expand on that?

Unless you're simply pointing out that escalation to a large scale nuclear exchange means all states "will cease to exist', this is a non-trivial statement that begs explication.

Can you expand on that?

Israel is a known "owner" of nuclear weapons and is the nation which, depending on scenario, has the ability to attack pretty much anything in Europe. Possible counter-force scenario between Russia and US will involve "killing" of Israel's nuclear deterrent, as it will be with European NATO members (UK and France), but Israel is tiny and any nuclear strike there is, basically, a death sentence. This is in a nutshell–of course contingencies vary but I am sure Israel's nuclear sites are in the targeting data base of Russia's nuclear triad. That is until Israel gets the message and gets back to daddy (or mommy) and that is what is in play right now. It will take some time, though.

[Sep 23, 2018] Putin, Israel and the downed Il-20 by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... both sides emphasized the importance of the states' interests and the continued implementation of the deconfliction system" ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Next, let's assume that this is simply the typical case of Israeli arrogance (not a myth!) and that they decided to inform the Russians as late as possible. Does that at all entail that the maneuver of the Israeli F-16s pilots to seek cover from the S-200 missile was something they had planned in advance? Does anybody bother to look at the actual (as opposed to Hollywood) record of the Israeli Air Force during past wars when they were actually challenged by a reasonably capable air defense? There is a detailed discussion (in Russian) about this here which can be summarized like this: as soon as the Israelis start losing aircraft their martial prowess rapidly vanishes. Now please recall this: the Israelis have had recent losses, some admitted, some denied, but there is no doubt that they are tense and very concerned. Bottom line: I would fully expect the Israeli pilots to freak out and seek cover as soon as they are told by their warning system that they are being painted by a radar in tracking mode (the S-200 has a semi-active radar homing guidance system). If that is the case, and I am not saying that this is the only possibility, then the fault is of the Israeli pilots, not of their commanders or the Israeli state as a hole. Yes, the command responsibility is the one of the state, but not the guilt for having engaged in such an evasive maneuver (besides, knowing the price placed by Israeli on goyim lives , this would be just so typical, would it not )

At this point, I need to ask another question: what would the Israelis gain from shooting down the Il-20? They sure ain't gonna frighten the Russians (Russian military don't scare easy) and the Il-20 will be replaced. Scaring the Iranians or Hezbollah? Forget it – not happening. Maybe there was a real lucrative target that they destroyed? Yes, maybe, be so far we don't know anything about this. So what would be the point?

Then the "sister question": what would the Israelis risk by deliberately shooting down a Russian EW aircraft? Well, in theory, they would risk having their aircraft shot down and their airbases engaged with Russian missiles. That is highly unlikely, I will admit, and the Israelis probably understand the Russians very well (many of them being from Russia). But could they be sure that the local commanders would not order an immediate retaliation (as their current rules of engagement do authorize them to!)? Let me remind everybody that this Spring, the USA was not so sure at all, and following the words of the Russian ambassador that " not only missiles but their launchers would be destroyed " the USN and Air Force decided to shoot as little as possible and from as far as possible. As for the British sub, its captain decided to cancel the planned missile strike entirely (they were being shadowed by two Russian subs). Seems to me that the potential risks of that kind of operation would be pretty high, while the potential rewards rather unclear.

Those who insist that this was a deliberate Israeli act need to come up with a halfway credible explanation not only for how this was done, but also why this was done.

Now, like many others, I despise the Israeli racist, genocidal rogue state with all my heart. But that does not prevent me from being capable of imagining a scenario in which the Israelis simply screwed-up. Believe it or not, but my disgust for Zionist ideology does not at all entail a boundless belief in some Israeli infallibility.

Finally, let look at this: today (Sept 20 th ) an IDF delegation led by Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Amikam Norkin is in Moscow. Also participating in the trip are the Head of the Foreign Relations Division, Brig.-Gen. Erez Meisel and other officers from the Intelligence, Air Force and Operations Divisions. Does anybody believe that all these officers went to Moscow just to thumb their noses at the Russians? Or maybe they all traveled to Moscow to present some totally non-credible excuses which will only infuriate the Russians further?

My guess is that they have something exculpatory (at least in part) to show.

If the Russians conclude that the Israelis did it deliberately, I will support a strike on Israeli air bases. If the Russians conclude that the Israelis cannot be trusted to abide by any agreements (which I think is indisputable), then I think that the Russians should declare an air exclusion zone over the Russian forces (a 100km radius or so). I also think that it is high time to keep a pair MiG-31BMs on 24/7 combat air patrol high over Syria (they can come quite close to replacing a much more expensive and vulnerable A-50U AWACS).

At this time (Sept 20 th 20:37 GMT) all they have announced is that " both sides emphasized the importance of the states' interests and the continued implementation of the deconfliction system" . If that is all that the Russians decide, then I will find it wholly inadequate and I will predict a further surge in frustration against not only the government, but against Putin himself. But, for the time being, we need to wait and see what the Russian investigation will reveal. Only then can we begin cheering Putin or calling him names.

There is also this possibility: the Russians would decide on an air exclusion zone and tell the Israelis, but both sides would decide to keep this secret in order for Israel to save face (because if the Russians declare an air exclusion zone, this will create a safe heaven for Hezbollah and all the other militias which would be a political disaster for Bibi Netanyahu). So we might never find out.

Finally, I want to add one more thing which is rarely, if ever, mentioned.

The S-200 is a pretty old air defense system. We also know that it does not have a Russian IFF. However, the Russians have declared several times that the Russian air defense network and the Syrian one were integrated. This is what best explains, at least in part, the very high number of US cruise missiles intercepted in April. The problem is that the way the S-200 (and most modern air defense systems) works is that the S-200 is fully integrated into a larger air defense network administered by automated air defense management systems which is operated by a higher echelon air defense command. This means that the Syrian air defense crew did not simply detect the incoming missiles and fire off one of their own. At the very least, this decision was taken by a higher echelon Syrian air defense command. Now we know that the time was extremely short and, hence, the Russian air defense personnel might not have had the time to take protective action, especially not when dealing with a large, slow and vulnerable moving EW aircraft (the fact that this aircraft flew un-escorted is definitely a Russian mistake!). Still, we know that the Russians have many early warning capabilities which the Syrians do not have (AWACS, space based, shipborne radars, over-the-horizon radars, etc.) and there is a pretty decent chance that somebody could have done something to prevent what happened. True, since the Israelis and Russians had an agreement, the Russians therefore classified the Israelis as "non-threat", but it does not take a genius to understand that four Israeli F-16 flying towards the Latakia Governorate are up to no good and that this warrants immediately going on full alert.


Bill65 , says: September 21, 2018 at 8:43 am GMT

Can The Saker tell us what right Israel has to bomb targets in Syria ? The Russians were invited in to save Syria as were the Iranians and Hezbollah but Israel is on the side of the attackers of Syria .
Proud_Srbin , says: September 21, 2018 at 9:21 am GMT
You are absolutely correct.
USA responded in similar fashion when Israel sunk "Liberty" with greater loss of american lives.
Most of Israeli population are God's chosen people and can do no wrong.
God placed them on Earth to watch over us and even gave us his son to civilize us.
Praise the Lord!
anon , [317] Disclaimer says: September 23, 2018 at 6:14 am GMT
@Bill65 Can The Saker tell us what right Israel has to bomb targets in Syria ? The Russians were invited in to save Syria as were the Iranians and Hezbollah but Israel is on the side of the attackers of Syria . One of the first courses in law school is intentional torts. The intent, an act expressing that intent, and damages are the only requirement in many torts. The tort of Battery; intent does not have to be an intent to cause the harm that actually occurred.. Merely expressing an intent in some kind of action satisfies the element of intent; it does not matter to assignment of liability if the actual harm was unintended.

In criminal law: A holds up a bank, five cops show up, B shoots his gun at the ceiling, the bullet bounces and kills one of the cops,and starts a fire in the bank A is probably guilty of murder, Arson and attempted robbery.

so if while intending to shoot target victim A, the shooter instead accidentally or otherwise shoots innocent non targeted victim B, the intent requirement for Battery is satisfied. Hence Israel, and each and every one of its leaders, might be liable. w/o regards to a showing that the intended target was unharmed, while a different innocent was unintentionally harmed. Its the harm caused by an expression of an intention that produces the liability. It does not matter that the harm happened to an unintended party.

Trespass to chattel, interference with a chattel which results in injury to the possessor or injury to a person or thing in which the possessor of the chattel has a legally protected interest(like life and assets) results in liability for trespass. If Israel without privilege touches a Indian Snake Charmers Snake, causing Snake Charmers Snake to bite a Russian bystander, Israel probably liable for the injury to the Russian bystander.
But there is more, the doctrine of transferred intent applies. Here the intent in four other torts (battery, assault, trespass to land or false imprisonment) can be substituted to satisfy the requisite intent for trespass to chattel. If Israel intends to destroy Syrian dams with weapons and missiles, and instead causes a Syrian response that kills Russian soldiers and planes, the tort would hold Israel liable for the damage to the plane and the deaths of the Russians. IANAL. There is a lot to this intent thing, but generally, I understand, when intent is established, especially if unlawful trespass or criminality is part of the expression of the intentional act, that Intent element in the tort would be satisfied.

The Tort of Extreme and Outrageous conduct; behavior "that reaches beyond all possible bounds of decency; atrocious, utterly intolerable in a civilized community ( such as invading a sovereign nation; attacking its assets and killing its inhabitants). Here the expression of intent is in the outrageous behavior, the persons harmed might not even be known to the person who engaged in the Tort of Extreme and Outrageous conduct.

IANAL and I would appreciate it if a lawyer would make these point clear and clarify my understanding of these principles, especially as they might apply to the situation at hand.
My point here is the intent and transfer of intent principles suggest Israel intended unauthorized trespass, acts of aggression and war, and it is indifferent to liability for the crime or damages that conducting war against Russia was unintended.

Moreover, it seems to me unlikely that Israel would plan an attack, and not coordinate it with Russia, when such an attack was so close to Russian Assets and Russian Personnel. Israel had to know the risk of killing Russians and destroying Russian assets was likely (Scienter?), which suggest to me Israel intended to use Syrian technical limitations as a means to punish Russia for protecting Syria. [ Res ipsa Loquitur comes to mind]. Wonder how a Jewish court and Jewish judge would rule on this one?

[Sep 23, 2018] The Syrian ceasefire proves how far Putin has come out on top by Patrick Cockburn

Notable quotes:
"... The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

There is a striking note of imperial self-confidence about the document in which all sides in the Syrian civil war are instructed to come to heel. This may not happen quite as intended because it is difficult to see why fighters of al-Qaeda-type groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham should voluntarily give up such military leverage as they still possess. The Syrian government has said that it will comply with the agreement but may calculate that, in the not so long term, it will be able to slice up Idlib bit by bit as it did with other rebel enclaves.

What is most interesting about the agreement is less its details than what it tells us about the balance of forces in Syria, the region and even the world as a whole. Fragile it may be, but then that is true of all treaties which general Charles de Gaulle famously compared to "young girls and roses – they last as long as they last". Implementation of the Putin-Erdogan agreement may be ragged and its benefits temporary, but it will serve a purpose if a few less Syrians in Idlib are blown apart.

The Syrian civil war long ago ceased to be a struggle fought out by local participants. Syria has become an arena where foreign states confront each other, fight proxy wars and put their strength and influence to the test.The most important international outcome of war so far is that it has enabled Russia to re-establish itself as a great power. Moscow helped Assad secure his rule after the popular uprising in 2011 and later ensured his ultimate victory by direct military intervention in 2015. A senior diplomat from an Arab country recalls that early on in the Syrian war, he asked a US general with a command in the region what was the difference between the crisis in Syria and the one that had just ended with the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. The general responded with a single word: "Russia."

It is difficult to remember now, when Russia is being portrayed in the west as an aggressive predatory power threatening everybody, the extent which it was marginalised seven years ago when Nato was carrying out regime change in Libya.

Russia was in reality always stronger than it looked because it remained a nuclear superpower capable of destroying the world after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 just as it was before. It should be difficult to forget this gigantically important fact, but politicians and commentators continue to blithely recommend isolating Russia and pretend that it can be safely ignored.

The return of Russia as a great power was always inevitable but was accelerated by successful opportunism and crass errors by rival states. Assad in Syria was always stronger than he looked. Even at the nadir of his fortunes in July 2011, the British embassy in Damascus estimated that he had the backing of 30 to 40 per cent of the population according to The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East by Christopher Phillips, which should be essential reading for anybody interested in Syria. Expert opinion failed to dent the conviction among international statesmen that Assad was bound to go. When the French ambassador Eric Chevallier expressed similar doubts about the imminence of regime change he received a stern rebuke from officials in Paris who told him: "Your information does not interest us. Bashar al-Assad must fall and will fall."

[Sep 23, 2018] Modern IDENTITY LEFTISM WILL EAT ITSELF by Black Pigeon Speaks

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Modern IDENTITY LEFTISM WILL EAT ITSELF Support BPS via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/blackpigeon ✅ Tip Jar: via PayPal to: navyhato@gmail.com ✅2nd Channel- Navy Hato: ... Black Pigeon Speaks September 22, 2018 (8:02) 95,236 Views 1 Comment Reply Email This Page to Someone

Miro23 , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:19 am GMT

What a great video!!

The Democratic Socialists of America, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Britain's Jeremy Corbyn.

"I haven't abandoned the Left – the Left has abandoned me"

Mass immigration and citizenship to change the voter base.

The "victimhood" activists & their friends and sponsors – the cosmopolitan global elite.

The public desire to escape from this nightmare – with Eastern Europe following Victor Orban (who follows the wishes of Hungarian voters).

And, bad luck on the US public who wanted the same, but were tricked by the great conman Donald Trump.

[Sep 23, 2018] One can like or dislike Judge Kavanagh, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl while in high school is completely insane

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

But another running disaster is the feminists' attempt to derail nomination of Judge Kavanagh. One can like or dislike the judge, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl while in high school is completely insane. MeToo, Kavanagh, I also had affairs with girls so many (and more) years ago!

Even if all the complainant claimed was true (and Kavanagh denied it) I'd find him not guilty and vote for him to the Supreme Court. Bear in mind, we speak of events that took (or not) place years ago. In those years, girls were expected to surrender only to some token force. "No means no" was a totally unheard-of idea.

[Sep 23, 2018] A New Martin Luther by Anatoly Karlin

Aug 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Prosvirnin is the most talented writer. Limonov has by far the most colorful personality. Dugin has been the most effective at promoting himself in the West. Prokhanov probably has the most name recognition in Russia. Galkovsky created the most powerful memes. Krylov provided the esoteric flavoring.

And yet out of all of Russia's right-wing intellectuals , there is perhaps none so unique as Egor Kholmogorov.

This is ironic, because out of all of the above, he is the closest to the "golden mean" of the Russian nationalist memeplex.

He is a realist on Soviet achievements, crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks.

Instead of wasting his time on ideological rhetoric, he reads Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century and writes reviews about it on his website. And about 224 other books .

And this brings us to what makes Kholmogorov so unique: He is an extremely well-read autodidact.

This allows him to write informed and engaging articles on a very wide variety of different topics and breaking news.

In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the best modern Russian right-wing intellectual , period.

Unfortunately, he is almost entirely unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media outlets like Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very small part to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov's articles ( Europe's Week of Human Sacrifice ; A Cruel French Lesson ). Still, there's only so much one blogger with many other things to write about can do.

Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating fellow in his own right – he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture – though his insistence on anonymity constrains what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the "Silver Surfer" to Kholmogorov's Galactus.

We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.

In the meantime, I am privileged to present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.

***

A New Martin Luther?: James Damore's Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective

Original: https://tsargrad.tv/articles/triumf-gendernyh-sharikovyh_79187

Translated by Fluctuarius Argenteus :

Google fires employee James Damore for "perpetuating gender stereotypes.

– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

A conversation just like or similar to this one recently took place in the office of one of modern information market monsters, the Google Corporation.

Illustration to the Google scandal. James Damore fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.

Google knows almost everything about us, including the contents of our emails, our addresses, our voice samples ( OK Google ), our favorite stuff, and, sometimes, our sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the world with our own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine algorithms has been discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a central House of Cards plotline.

Conversely, we know next to nothing about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of corporate values and convictions that the company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and American worldview even more so. Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology, suffused with Leftist and aggressively feminist values.

The story goes this way. In early August, an anonymous manifesto titled Google's Ideological Echo Chamber was circulated through the local network of Google. The author lambasted the company's ideological climate, especially its policy of so-called diversity. This policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far as to appoint a "chief diversity officer". The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them fast-track promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based advantage.

The author argues that Leftism and "diversity" policies lead to creating an "echo chamber" within the company, where a person only talks to those who share their opinions, and, through this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their beliefs are the only ones that matter. This "echo chamber" narrows one's intellectual horizon and undermines work efficiency, with following "the party line" taking precedence over real productivity.

In contrast to Google's buzzwords of "vision" and "innovation", the author claims that the company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed ideological blindfold and is stuck in a morass.

As Google employs intellectuals, argues the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist clique within the company. If the Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the Left declares all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.

The central Leftist idea is the class struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of struggle has been transposed onto gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White oppressors, oppressed women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently, the US presidency) is charged with bringing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to life by imposing the "diversity" policy.

The critic argues that the witch-hunt of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to conceal their political alignment or resign from the job, is not the only effect of this Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes not to the best there is but to the "best woman of color". There are multiple educational or motivation programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies, disincentivizes White men from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness, if not sabotage. Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle.

What is the proposed solution?

Stop diving people into "oppressors" and "the oppressed" and forcefully oppressing the alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.

The diversity of opinion must apply to everyone. The company must stop alienating Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that needs their rights to be protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.

Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only those deemed worthy by the politically correct America.

End diversity programs discriminatory towards White men and replace them with non-discriminatory ones.

Have an unbiased assessment of the costs and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not only expensive but also pit one part of the company's employees against the other.

Instead of gender and race differences, focus on psychological safety within the company. Instead of calling to "feel the others' pain", discuss facts. Instead of cultivating sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.

Admit that not all racial or gender differences are social constructs or products of oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.

The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.

The differences argued by the author are as follows:

Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects.

Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All too often, women can't take the methods of competition considered natural among men.

Women are looking for a balance between work and private life, men are obsessed with status and

Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks to "feminize" men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken society in the long run).

It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.

We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him "a typical sexist", for others he is a "free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore".

It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".

However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.

Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.

The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.

As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".

The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that the prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.

Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.

However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their efficient use.

The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.

However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions.

First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution", only its parodic inversion. Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees the "male" as "superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate degradation of the "superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the Communist revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.

Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.

The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let's not call them roles – the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent.

The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.

Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile relations, it's probably for the better.

[Sep 23, 2018] songbird

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: August 10, 2017 at 2:25 am GMT 100 Words I like the sacrifice picture. I always thought making humorous video shorts (with a budget) of sacrifices to a diversity god would be powerful satire. But I always pictured an ancient Greek setting with oxen, and those who benefit from diversity drives eating those oxen. That or in an American setting with piles of money being first expropriated at gunpoint and then burnt and maybe inhaled. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 10, 2017 at 3:49 am GMT this has been bugging me for a long time: I think отнять и поделить is better translated as confiscate and distribute . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Diversity Heretic says: August 10, 2017 at 5:08 am GMT 100 Words Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." Read More Replies: @Logan Quite right. ML got something resembling due process. , @anonymous The Worms "Hier stehe ich" ("Here I stand") comment may have been a convenient shorthand for a much more long-winded speech, so Luther may not have actually uttered those words. Nevertheless, point taken. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Alden says: August 10, 2017 at 5:59 am GMT 200 Words Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.

If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center, close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive and legislative branches.

Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky treated the Russian counterrevolution.
I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.

I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it. Read More Replies: @Sowhat


I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.
Guilty as charged...As many immature, uneducated Whites in the sixties, I too was played like a fiddle. If I only knew then what I know now... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
5371 says: August 10, 2017 at 6:09 am GMT He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly, not part of a practical movement or party. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

ineffectual intellectual
What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities" field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
WHAT says: August 10, 2017 at 6:12 am GMT Egor certainly deserves much more publicity than he is getting right now. I wouldn`t agree on the other Egor being the most talented, but he did his own important thing, creating a first real media platform for the russian nationalism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 7:13 am GMT

conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.

EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? Read More Replies: @Logan A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.

Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the space inside the box.

But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really aware a box exists. They envision a new box.

Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can expand on and implement it. Build the box.

Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types. But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.

Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing. Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.

I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left for being open to new ideas.

You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.

To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests. , @Joe Franklin


The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?
Leftist set the ideological tone because entitled-by-law diversity people (aka leftist) are a organized super-majority of the voting populace in the US and Israel:

Feminist are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veterans are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
Native Americans are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
International Socialist are federally entitled because of anti-Totalitarian oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Neocon oppression

Diversity people are over 95% of the US voting population and are 100% of the Israeli population. , @Daniel Chieh As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
jimmyriddle says: August 10, 2017 at 7:15 am GMT 200 Words "but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."

Damore doesn't say that – he explicitly says the opposite:

" I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

https://diversitymemo.com/

The author of this piece has made the same error as much of the Anglo MSM.

Damore has been a victim of liberal arts people not being able to understand that he is talking about population averages, not individuals. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 8:25 am GMT

– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

That's a fairly eloquent argument right off the bat. Read More Agree: Dieter Kief Replies: @Dieter Kief I agree. (Button out of work) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 8:57 am GMT 200 Words "Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."

He said no such thing.

He said that as a group more women than men fit these stereotypes, percentages undetermined.

I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine, irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature.

That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue, or invalid. Outmoded.

Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth.

IOW, Google fired him for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT @Diversity Heretic Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." Quite right. ML got something resembling due process. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 9:11 am GMT 300 Words @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.

Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the space inside the box.

But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really aware a box exists. They envision a new box.

Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can expand on and implement it. Build the box.

Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types. But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.

Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing. Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.

I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left for being open to new ideas.

You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.

To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
animalogic says: August 10, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT 200 Words "and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant "Only to those too blind to see.

"The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent."
Excellent point. Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent".

"It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
jim jones says: August 10, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT Credit to Vox Day:

http://imgur.com/a/BTwz3 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Greg Bacon says: Website August 10, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT 300 Words This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.

It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.

It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most of the music business, letting artists–mostly rap–sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.

After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change, but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty. Read More Agree: Seamus Padraig , anarchyst , Rurik Replies: @Fidelios Automata Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over. Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
The Alarmist says: August 10, 2017 at 9:30 am GMT 100 Words

"is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services."

Yep, we can discuss it in what the Libs consider to be our own little conspiracy-theory echo chamber. Sometimes you have to accept that there is evil and then decide what to do about it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Daniil Adamov says: August 10, 2017 at 10:03 am GMT 100 Words The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article. Read More Replies: @Anon


this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic
That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. , @englishmike

(Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get)
That's a fair comment, and I imagine that most people commenting here would be aware of Damore's limitations as a thinker. But what he wrote, and the context in which he published it, has attracted that "surprising notoriety": he appears to have sparked different kinds of reaction in different kinds of people and inspired levels of debate beyond the limitations of his thought.

Maybe the Unz Review should consider offering him a platform from which to write a follow-up by inviting him to submit a blog, or at least to contribute as a commenter on a thread such as this one. It would enable him to take his arguments further and also to submit them to the critical responses of the commenters here - which would be more respectful and less trivial than the ones he has encountered in the Google "community".

It might also attract people to the Unz Review who have not yet benefited from the "interesting, important and controversial" perspectives available here. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Dieter Kief says: August 10, 2017 at 10:07 am GMT @Anonymous


– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

That's a fairly eloquent argument right off the bat. I agree. (Button out of work) Read More Replies: @Anonymous This is why we need a * highher * power to put these "masters of the universe" in their place. Google is a utility and it should be treated as such. End of story. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Dieter Kief says: August 10, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT 200 Words Egor Kholmogorov is a very intersting new voice – – thanks – all – for your efforts.

(James Damore is no Martin Luther: Luther is the person in world history , that is written about the most. By putting Damore in such oversized boots, no wonder Kholmogorov after a while finds, that his subject doesn't walk properly. What Damore tries to do is not, to understand our times, or to reform modern society or some such: He simply takes a position in a debate over role models – and a debate about a pretty Marxist question, if you think about it: Just how many of our character traits have a material (=biological) basis. That task Damore solves clear and well, I think. But more, he doesn't, – – whereas Luther for example (or Brenz from Schwäbisch Hall & Melanchthon from Bretten) really tried – and (mostly) achieved)). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 10, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. Read More Replies: @iffen It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently.

Perfect overlap then. , @AP


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? , @Jaakko Raipala This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them - they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard. , @dfordoom


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
Agreed. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 10:45 am GMT @Dieter Kief I agree. (Button out of work) This is why we need a * highher * power to put these "masters of the universe" in their place. Google is a utility and it should be treated as such. End of story. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Zogby says: August 10, 2017 at 10:47 am GMT 200 Words This is turning out to be the most incendiary firing since James Comey.
Damore's essay is an expression of his self-interest in retaining male dominance in software engineering and his anger that his employer is making moves of artificial reverse-discrimination in order to try and reverse the dominance. It is guised in intellectual terms but that's really all there is to it. His company's management supports the attempt to shift power from men to women – and are worried Damore or the likes of him will succeed in organizing a male rebellion – which would bring the company down because of its dependence on the male workforce. That's why they panicked and fired him. And to top it off, Google is run by a foreign feminized beta male – which – being a member of a minority – is unable himself to take on The Powers That Be in America. Because a being a Hindu he's presupposed to need reeducation himself to fit in American society. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 10, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT 400 Words Good article, Anatoly. Thanks for the translation.

The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.

Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice; on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so he may not be aware of this.

Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.

Prejudice is simply the layman's empiricism -- i.e., learning from experience. When you don't know the individual in question, you are always going to fall back on assumptions based on known patterns. That's why prejudice is impossible to get rid of: you would have to get rid of human nature.

This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career.

I agree with commenter #10 above that this is not a fair characterization of Damore's argument. Damore spoke of statistical averages. He never said "all men" or "all women".

However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society.

So true, and I wonder how you reacted to reading that, Anatoly. This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture , which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even being a civilization worth living in while it lasts. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
bliss_porsena says: August 10, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT Don't do any more translation. Leave the original in Russian where it belongs, and summarise. Parse the nuggets of gold into bullet points. Two or three should do it. Read More Disagree: Seamus Padraig Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymouse says: August 10, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT God help the Russians if this pedestrian essay was written by their best man. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Joe Franklin says: August 10, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT 200 Words @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?

The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?

Leftist set the ideological tone because entitled-by-law diversity people (aka leftist) are a organized super-majority of the voting populace in the US and Israel:

Feminist are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veterans are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
Native Americans are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
International Socialist are federally entitled because of anti-Totalitarian oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Neocon oppression

Diversity people are over 95% of the US voting population and are 100% of the Israeli population. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Carlo says: August 10, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT 100 Words "Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle."
In the long run, this is good. Natural selection will ensure that in a few decades Google and many other big Western corporations who follow these lines will fail due to incompetence of their managers and employees, and more pragmatic ones will appear and replace them, usually from more traditional and rational societies in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Russia) and East Asia (China, South Korea, Singapur). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
utu says: August 10, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT 100 Words Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion.

We still have peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes.

We know a lot about Martin Luther private life but we know less about James Damore. Is there also the issue of getting laid? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Daniel Chieh says: August 10, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. Read More Replies: @iffen As in most things, a balance is probably ideal.

Moderation in all things, save moderation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Joe Hide says: August 10, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT Anatoly,
Good read. Good examples to support an emotionally spirited article. Keep writing. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT 100 Words

Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.

That could be read as just the usual conservative "antiracism". Now admittedly there certainly should be moral and ethical limits regarding those issues, one should take care not to end up at the same conclusions and deeds as the Nazis but still, in the present intellectual climate of the West bashing "Conservative naturalism" would be very misguided imo. All this talk of Burkean conservatism, tradition, religion etc. will be totally ineffectual against the progressive juggernaut.
As for that Google memo is that really important? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently.

Perfect overlap then. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
FD says: August 10, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT Why did you omit the original title, "Triumph of the Gender Sharikovs"? Read More Replies: @Fluctuarius The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in a footnote. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.

Great! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT @Daniel Chieh As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal.

Moderation in all things, save moderation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT @Daniil Adamov The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his - honestly somewhat surprising - current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.

this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic

That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. Read More Replies: @Anon That's not saying very much. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Ivan K. says: August 10, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT 200 Words Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. "

I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.

Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster "

Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs. Read More Replies: @iffen Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.

Good point.

In that they ended up in a war of annihilation, could we say that each was served by their respective prejudices? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Michael Kenny says: August 10, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT 100 Words What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting. Read More Disagree: JL Replies: @Anon


He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans.
Fellow Europeans? They are not his fellow Europeans.
He is not an European and modern Europe is increasingly an extension of America, and not something independent. , @Daniel Chieh This is not without historical precedent.

The notion of the Russian soul has always existed as a contrast to the rest of Europe, and to be fair, most of Europe is assimilated heavily to what their idea of America is. I know of quite a few Russians who would be annoyed if you called them "fellow Europeans." Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT @Anon


this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic
That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. That's not saying very much. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT @Ivan K. Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. "

I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.

Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster "

Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs. Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.

Good point.

In that they ended up in a war of annihilation, could we say that each was served by their respective prejudices? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
WorkingClass says: August 10, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT 100 Words The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies. Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig


Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.
Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't conservatism. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT @Michael Kenny What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting.

He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans.

Fellow Europeans? They are not his fellow Europeans.
He is not an European and modern Europe is increasingly an extension of America, and not something independent. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT @Diversity Heretic Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." The Worms "Hier stehe ich" ("Here I stand") comment may have been a convenient shorthand for a much more long-winded speech, so Luther may not have actually uttered those words. Nevertheless, point taken. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Daniel Chieh says: August 10, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT 100 Words @Michael Kenny What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting. This is not without historical precedent.

The notion of the Russian soul has always existed as a contrast to the rest of Europe, and to be fair, most of Europe is assimilated heavily to what their idea of America is. I know of quite a few Russians who would be annoyed if you called them "fellow Europeans." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
nickels says: August 10, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
There is little point arguing from a 'common sense' stance against the leftists.
This is war, not an argument.

Liberalism must be destroyed. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin


This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Cagey Beast says: Website August 10, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT 200 Words Seeing Orthodoxy and Martin Luther mentioned in the same place reminded me of the amusing history of early Lutheran contacts with the eastern Church:

Most Christians are not aware that in the latter part of the 16th century, early Lutheran Reformers – close colleagues and followers of Martin Luther – set in motion an eight year contact and correspondence with the (then) Ecumenical Patriarch, Jeremias II of Constantinople. The outcome might have changed the course of Christian history. Kevin Allen speaks with scholar Dr Paraskeve (Eve) Tibbs about this fascinating and largely unknown chapter in post-Reformation history.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

From Wittenberg to Antioch
September 16, 2007 Length: 32:12

A fascinating interview with Fr. Gregory Hogg, an Antiochian priest in Western Michigan. Fr. Gregory was a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor and professor for 22 years before coming to Orthodoxy.
[...]

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

Long story short, the western reformers were too argumentative and lawyerly for the Patriarch of Constantinople to take. He essentially said "please stop writing to me". Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Wally says: August 10, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT Basically the Left is in denial of science DNA. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig Yes, it's funny, isn't it. Liberals loudly proclaim their allegiance to evolution, but only to attack Christianity. But as soon as the concept of evolution upsets their non-scientific theories of 'gender fluidity' and 'racial equality', they close their eyes, cover their ears, and stomp their little feet. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 10, 2017 at 6:25 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently

So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art says: August 10, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT 100 Words Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace -- Art Read More Replies: @utu STEVE BANNON WANTS FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE REGULATED LIKE UTILITIES
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ , @Darin


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility
Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 10, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT @Art Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace --- Art STEVE BANNON WANTS FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE REGULATED LIKE UTILITIES

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
22pp22 says: August 10, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT I've abandoned Google and gone over to Duckduckgo. They seem just as good. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig Yes, I've been using DuckDuckGo.com for over four years now, and no regrets. No filter bubbles either! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Jaakko Raipala says: August 10, 2017 at 7:58 pm GMT 300 Words @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them – they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard. Read More Agree: Anatoly Karlin , Johann Ricke Replies: @Miro23


Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Fluctuarius says: August 10, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT @FD Why did you omit the original title, "Triumph of the Gender Sharikovs"? The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in a footnote. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
englishmike says: August 10, 2017 at 8:38 pm GMT 200 Words @Daniil Adamov The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his - honestly somewhat surprising - current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.

(Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get)

That's a fair comment, and I imagine that most people commenting here would be aware of Damore's limitations as a thinker. But what he wrote, and the context in which he published it, has attracted that "surprising notoriety": he appears to have sparked different kinds of reaction in different kinds of people and inspired levels of debate beyond the limitations of his thought.

Maybe the Unz Review should consider offering him a platform from which to write a follow-up by inviting him to submit a blog, or at least to contribute as a commenter on a thread such as this one. It would enable him to take his arguments further and also to submit them to the critical responses of the commenters here – which would be more respectful and less trivial than the ones he has encountered in the Google "community".

It might also attract people to the Unz Review who have not yet benefited from the "interesting, important and controversial" perspectives available here. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 10, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT 100 Words @5371 He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly, not part of a practical movement or party.

ineffectual intellectual

What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities" field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 10, 2017 at 9:04 pm GMT 100 Words

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

Ooookey Dookey! And how about other two fundamental signs of impending revolution? I agree with vanguard argument, after all school in Longjumeau was doing just that–preparing the vanguard. But what about economics of revolution? What about political crisis? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Darin says: August 10, 2017 at 9:30 pm GMT @Art Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace --- Art

Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership? Read More Replies: @Art


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Darin,

The exstreams of Google Today and United States Googlemaster General will not work for us – there can be something in between. A golden mean can be reached.

The best situation would be for Googles users, to each set the policy for themselves.

This is doable. They get to choose the what algorithms they want and the viewing policy they want.

Googlemaster General must see that ALL information is collected and made available to users.

Peace --- Art Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art says: August 10, 2017 at 10:13 pm GMT 100 Words @Darin


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility
Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Darin,

The exstreams of Google Today and United States Googlemaster General will not work for us – there can be something in between. A golden mean can be reached.

The best situation would be for Googles users, to each set the policy for themselves.

This is doable. They get to choose the what algorithms they want and the viewing policy they want.

Googlemaster General must see that ALL information is collected and made available to users.

Peace -- Art Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT "Polity" should be "policy". "Diving" should be "dividing".

I stopped noticing after that.

Give the new Russian translator a break. Read his copy before posting it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Macumazahn says: August 11, 2017 at 1:15 am GMT 100 Words If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they bring to the table that men do not?
This same observation applies to all "diversity" hiring. If one denies the differences among groups, there can be no business justification for diversity – aside, that is, from Lefty boycotts. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Miro23 says: August 11, 2017 at 2:43 am GMT 400 Words @Jaakko Raipala This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them - they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power – some of them acting idealistically – some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2. Read More Replies: @melanf


The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.
The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2") is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Jivilov says: August 11, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. Read More Agree: utu Replies: @Seamus Padraig I agree. The term 'gender' is for Latin nouns, not living beings. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
melanf says: August 11, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT 100 Words @Miro23


Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2″) is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/

" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom... Isn,' t it obvious by now? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
dfordoom says: Website August 11, 2017 at 5:09 am GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

Agreed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
JackOH says: August 11, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT 100 Words Anatoly, thanks for introducing some Russian writers. My experience of reading outsiders who write about America is that they sometimes offer startling viewpoints that are helpful to those of us "in-country" who are too close to the subject matter.

BTW- RT used to have, or maybe still has, an American-born presenter-opinionizer, a guy from Cleveland, Ohio. I think he's an ex-pat in Russia now, and he used to offer folksy, sharply worded critiques of life in the States. I couldn't find his name, but he might be worth looking up to see if he wants to contribute. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 am GMT 100 Words @AP


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. , @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 8:49 am GMT 100 Words @melanf


The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.
The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2") is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom Isn,' t it obvious by now? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT 100 Words @WorkingClass The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies. Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus.

Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.

Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't conservatism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT @Wally Basically the Left is in denial of science ... DNA. Yes, it's funny, isn't it. Liberals loudly proclaim their allegiance to evolution, but only to attack Christianity. But as soon as the concept of evolution upsets their non-scientific theories of 'gender fluidity' and 'racial equality', they close their eyes, cover their ears, and stomp their little feet. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT @22pp22 I've abandoned Google and gone over to Duckduckgo. They seem just as good. Yes, I've been using DuckDuckGo.com for over four years now, and no regrets. No filter bubbles either! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:57 am GMT @Jivilov Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. I agree. The term 'gender' is for Latin nouns, not living beings. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. Read More Replies: @AP Thanks for proving your ignorance yet again. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT 100 Words "He is a realist on Soviet achievements, crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks"

Dammit. I miss the "confiscate and divide" stuff.

How are the NatBolos doing these days? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

Bolsheviks looted the country.

I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .

You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.

So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia

"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Read More Agree: Mr. Hack Replies: @Mr. Hack Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis? , @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this... , @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. , @utu "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig


You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. Thanks for proving your ignorance yet again. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Mr. Hack says: August 11, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis? Read More Replies: @AP


Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?
https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT 200 Words @AP

Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this Read More Replies: @AP


You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?
I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference - unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure - in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.


There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina
Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters - Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system - were "real Communists." , @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Igor says: August 11, 2017 at 5:24 pm GMT Google wants to be
Ein Land
Ein Volk
Ein Führer Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT @Mr. Hack Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?

Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Read More Replies: @Mr. Hack Looks interesting. The one in Minneapolis is a 3 floor renovated church devoted to Russian art. Lots of Soviet Realism on display and occasional films too. They even had an exhibition of Aleksander Bulavitsky's art on display a couple of years ago, a local Ukrainian emigre that I've mentioned to you before (his work can be seen in Kyiv too). Several years back they had an impressive collection of religious art including icons and frescoes from as far back as the 14th century, many pieces from the northeast part of Russia. A philalately exhibit of Russian stamps that I once saw there was quite impressive too. If you're in the area, I recommend that you give it a visit. A nice gift shop too.
http://tmora.org/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT 400 Words @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this...

You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?

I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference – unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure – in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.

There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina

Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters – Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system – were "real Communists." Read More Agree: Mr. Hack , utu Replies: @Sergey Krieger 1990 not the best time frankly. How is western middle class is doing now? Again, you ignored my points and continued pressing own agenda. Soviet people basically were free, provided with all things necessary for fullfilling, happy and protected life which cost them nothing, while western middle class producing outword looks of prosperity was actually I'll iving life of stress, uncertainty and unhappiness. Hence, how is western middle class doing now? Up to nostrils in debt to mantain illusion of prosperity with no room for mistake. Many are no longer middle class. 50 million in USA alone on food help. Drud and various psycho meds in use to just get sort of temporary relief. What price one would put on having what we had? I would say it is priceless. After 1985 fifth column took control of CPSU central commity and top media. What was after 1986 hardly can be called Soviet Union , same as providing lines in stores in 1991 is not representation of what we really had before government Gorbachov and his inner cycle destabilized and destroyed my country. Without Gorbachov there would be no Yeltsin who was nothing but opportunist of the worst kind. To be fair comparison should be made for Brezhnev period which was the most prosperous time Russia ever seen and things were going in right direction before unworthy people without abilities and merit took over the power. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Read More Replies: @German_reader Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. , @Anatoly Karlin This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120331_EUC844.png

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. , @utu Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970's. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 11, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT 200 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. Read More Replies: @Darin East German Stasi spying on 1/3 of population was German efficiency run amok, objectively useless waste or resources. It made no difference at all for the survival of the regime.
In Czechoslovakia, next door country with comparable size population, the secret police watched about 60,000 people (i.e. VIP's and active dissidents), and it lasted about week longer than DDR. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 6:36 pm GMT 100 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. Read More Replies: @Hector_St_Clare Anatoly,

The "55-57% of west german GDP/capita by 1989" numbers I'm using (which are the also the ones used by the Wikipedia on the GDR) come from the former East German statistician Gerhard Heske in a 2009 study. The actual study is in German so I can't read it (maybe German Reader might be interested), but his numbers have been cited by a bunch of other papers I found which were quite critical of the GDR but didn't really take issue with his numbers. The reason people disagree about the size of the GDR economy in 1989 is, I think, because they weren't a market economy and so there was no way of assigning market values to the products they produced, other than by making 'quality adjustments' which are going to somewhat of a judgment call. Heske claims his methodology uses quality adjustments that are fairly standard, though.

Your series also starts in 1991 rather than 1989. It's worth pointing out that this fairly balanced treatment of German reunification by a Polish author both cites Heske's numbers for the 1989 GDP and also claims that in 1990 the East German economy was hit by severe recession as a result of excessively fast free market reforms and collapse of the central planning mechanism, and that GDP shrank "by at least 20% compared to the previous year." Of course an assessment of the East German economy in 1991 will look worse than it did in 1989, so that accounts for part though not all of the discrepancy.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_35_en_0.pdf Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 6:50 pm GMT 200 Words @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this...

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. Read More Replies: @iffen unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment." , @Andrei Martyanov


The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me--last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be? , @AP

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Looting one's own country's cultural treasures to finance a violent overthrow. Sounds familiar. I suspect that if some of these Commie apologists had been born as Sunni Arabs rather than Russians, they would be defending ISIS. , @Andrei Martyanov

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.
Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yIpW5BAQdSg/V7-AEA1H8HI/AAAAAAAAAiE/djQ8BHM4Zss5P7vm81DeWZFjy6b7UENwACLcB/s1600/9th%2BGrade.jpg


The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.
Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. , @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Mr. Hack says: August 11, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?
https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Looks interesting. The one in Minneapolis is a 3 floor renovated church devoted to Russian art. Lots of Soviet Realism on display and occasional films too. They even had an exhibition of Aleksander Bulavitsky's art on display a couple of years ago, a local Ukrainian emigre that I've mentioned to you before (his work can be seen in Kyiv too). Several years back they had an impressive collection of religious art including icons and frescoes from as far back as the 14th century, many pieces from the northeast part of Russia. A philalately exhibit of Russian stamps that I once saw there was quite impressive too. If you're in the area, I recommend that you give it a visit. A nice gift shop too.

http://tmora.org/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Fidelios Automata says: August 11, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT @Greg Bacon This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.

It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.

It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most of the music business, letting artists--mostly rap--sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.

After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change, but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty. Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over. Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment." Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."
True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness. Once one begins to look at the real estate dynamics, even for a good earners living in such places as Seattle, Portland (not to speak of L.A. or SF) becomes simply not affordable, forget buying anything decent. Hell, many rents are higher than actual mortgages, however insane they already are. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments