Edmund Connelly: Now I’ve got more reason to like Steve Sailer. He recently showed again on his VDARE blog why I’ve recommended him so strongly. Recall my two columns last year recommending his work—see here and here. I really think he does a great job at quantitatively showing how Jews have become the new elite in our society. And he does a pretty good job at pointing to some Jewish behavior that the MSM doesn’t always want to acknowledge.
His blog here paints a pretty clear picture again. His column is a coment David Brooks NYTimes column extolling the virtues of the new meritocracy compared to the bad old days when the WASPs ran the country. Brooks claims that “we have opened up opportunities for women, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics and members of many other groups.”
In reality, however, the big winners from this “meritocracy” are Jews. Sailer points out that
In 2009, 35% of the Forbes 400 are from one ethnic group that makes up only 2% of the population. So, is “The Power Elite” really that much more diverse today?
If you break down Brooks’ list — “African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics”– by membership in the 2009 Forbes 400, you come up with:
African-Americans: 1 (Oprah) Jews: 141 Italians: 14 Poles (and all other Eastern Europeans): 6 Hispanics: 2
Similarly, if you look at the 2009 Atlantic 50 ranking of most influential pundits, it’s half Jewish, versus 2% black and 0.5% Hispanic.
In other words, this increased “meritocratic diversity” among the elites that Brooks is writing about essentially consists of the rise of Jews over the last century.
The fact is that the new order is reasonably seen as less of a meritocracy than a new form of clubbiness where ethnic ties among Jews ease the way into top positions. Ethnic cohesion is certainly the main story of the Jewish academic and intellectual elite that constructed the Culture of Critique in the academic world, and the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the media elite mentioned by Sailer suggests it’s the same story there. Indeed, Jews are vastly overrepresented as students in elite academic institutions even controlling for IQ.
This new elite based on ethnic networking is at least as corrupt as the old WASP elite and its family ties. The new elite reacts with angry aggression and charges of “anti-Semitism” if one even mentions that they are in fact an elite.
The old elite had a sense of civic responsibility and national interest. As Sailer notes, the new elite seems to care nothing about the long term success of the society as a whole:
The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analyses is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment. Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant Establishment of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon them corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the overall nation rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization.
But the terrifying reality is that the Jewish ascendancy remains hostile to the traditional people and culture of America. Jews continue to earn like Episcopalians (actually more than Episcopalians) and vote like Puerto Ricans. They are the financial backbone of the Democratic Party and its coalition of non-White ethnic groups. (83% voted for Obama.) The organized Jewish community is a major pillar of support for massive, non-White immigration that will add 100 million non-Whites to the US in the next few decades.
The new elite is definitely not about conserving America for the long term success of the society as a whole. It’s about ethnic paranoia, ancient hatreds, and the desire to completely transform the society at the expense of its traditional people –elite and non-elite alike — at whatever the cost to the society as a whole. Hey, when it falls apart, just take the money and run to Israel.
Sailer makes it pretty clear that Brooks was not connecting the obvious dots: Since Jews took over America, things have definitely changed for the worse for White Americans.
Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. His most recent TOO article is “Farewell, My Dear WASP“
Facing the Future as a Minority
The NYTimes is declining, just like the United States and everything else the Jews touches.
We’ve seen it all before, the Jews move in, the nation declines, the people turn on the Jews, the Jews are driven out, the Jewish elites descend upon their next victim nation.
What is different about Americans that might mean a different outcome this time? What is the solution to this historic problem? When we take power back what will we do?
Don’t wax nostalgic for “the old elite”: their “sense of civic responsibility” gave us Planned Parenthood and Kinsey, their sense of “national interest” gave us WWI, WWII and Vietnam.
I possibly first heard of “The triumph of Unarmed Forces” by Rear Admiral Consett and Captain Daniel in the pages of TOQ but regardless the book gives an account of “the transactions by which Germany during the Great War was able to obtain supplies prior to her collapse under the pressure of economic forces.” WW1 should have been just one more short inter European war but thanks to the signing of the Treaty Of Paris in 1856 and the declaration of London in 1909 the British Navy was barred from searching for contraband and in the words of Sir Edward Fry this allowed overseas trade in neutral vessels between belligerents on the one hand and neutrals on the other to continue during the war without restrictions. Thus “both in America and in some of the northern European countries huge fortunes were amassed during the war.”Consett and Daniel did not pursue the identity of these “mercantile interests” but governmental approval of the resupplying of the enemy prolonged what should have been a short war into a genocidal war from which Europe never recovered. I imagine, HA ,that WW11 and Vietnam would have followed the same pattern.
Sailer has his moments.
PB is a GOOD man, one can imagine the heat he takes for having the MAN, write on his forum.
However it is compromised, of course.
Take today’s FRONT PAGE by Jew GIRIN which, in true TRIBAL manner, attempts to mask its goal, the continuing desire for genocide of Ukrainians, into a support for angry and fearful US Whites concern over diversity.
This is textbook KM, how it plays with the goyim who read Vdare I wonder.
Holodomor
Sailer is by far the best opinion writer in America. He actually uses facts and tells the truth instead of telling politically correct lies 24/7 like every columnist in the MSM (except for good ol’ Buchanan.) Peter Brimelow has called Sailer the “house moderate” at VDARE and said that in a just world he’d be writing for the NY Times magazine. The fact that nobody will publish his work shows that free speech is essentially dead in this country.
Steve Sailer copies all his blog postings from his blog, iSteve (http://isteve.blogspot.com), and then pastes them over at the VDARE blog. It appears that he has deleted the post, for unknown reasons, from iSteve.
“But the terrifying reality is that the Jewish ascendancy remains hostile to the traditional people and culture of America.”
Of course they’re hostile to the traditional people/culture of America because they aren’t related to them (us). The WASP ascendancy was.
I disagree that Girin’s article is textbook KM. It does seem to advocate a Western appeasement policy towards Russia (by giving up Ukraine). Giving up Ukraine, for which millions of German soldiers lost their lives, is a serious set back from a geopolitical point of view, and a triumph for Putinist Russia. Having said that, Girin is right that Ukraine is culturally much closer to Russia than to Europe.
It’s too bad that every single society and nation which has been dominated by Jews has eventually decayed and ultimately collapsed in an often violent heap because of incredible amounts of Jewish corruption. The USA and the UK are clearly on this path.
Jews make terrible elites and leaders because they do not identify with the White majority — in fact, they are innately hostile to us.
Neoboudica:”We’ve seen it all before, the Jews move in, the nation declines, the people turn on the Jews, the Jews are driven out, the Jewish elites descend upon their next victim nation.”
Yes, that almost perfectly sums up the undeniable historical pattern of Jewish nation-wrecking.
They’ve done so much damage to the USA that we are going to have A LOT of cleaning up to do once we get in to power.
Brooks wrote:”The Protestant Establishment was inbred.”
HA! That is hilarious coming from Brooks considering Ashkenazi Jews are one of the most inbred ethnic groups on Earth, with all of the resulting genetic diseases to show for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jewish_people#Ashkenazi_diseases
<i.It appears that he has deleted the post, for unknown reasons, from iSteve.
would probably open a comment thread two miles long. Brooks is fully aware that the new elite is jewish and the new system has been very very good for jews…
Jews have a horrible history wherever they have been an elite. they are incapable of stewardship.but it think brooks’ article was a first step into their more openly boasting and asserting their power, which will not be good for any of us.
The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analyses is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment
Brooks then, is asking Jews to not act like Jews… not possible.
The Girin article actually went against the Jewish grain.
Soros and the Neocons were huge supporters of the so called Orange Revolution.
They supported it not because they like Ukrainians, but rather because they hate Putin for driving Rothschild Family lackeys like Khodorkovsky out of the Russian power structure.
I side with Zeitgeist in having a laugh. Jews always remark about white trash being inbred, but in fact Jews are far more inbred than hillbillies, rivaling isolated African tribes and S. Pacific natives.
@Reginald:
It’s a widespread, but sublime misunderstanding, that Putin is somehow “anti-Jewish”. Jewish oligarchs like Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky and Berezovsky were removed not becaue of their ethnicity, but because they represented a challenge to Putin’s centralistic power structure. Most Jewish oligarchs, who conform to Kremlin’s interests and goals, remain in power and business. Putin is not an ethnic nationalist.
They are inbred for sure – Jews ridicule hillbillies because they know that we are explicitly White and racially aware. They target the Christian right and put them on Homeland Security Watch lists because they realize that when the crap hits the fan these are the people who will fight against Jews and defend our way of life. We consider their ridicule a compliment. We like having a worthy opponent too. It gives us a challenge.
This new elite based on ethnic networking is at least as corrupt as the old WASP elite and its family ties. The new elite reacts with angry aggression and charges of “anti-Semitism” if one even mentions that they are in fact an elite.
The breakdown of the system was thus – wasps, on a point of honor, went out of their way to dismantle their power structure. They naively put jews in positions of high trust and power – and jews violated this trust from day 1. the ‘thank you’ ? White christian males now make up less than 10% of Harvard undergrad- an institution thoroughly dominated by Jews. they have made a mockery of what remains of the ‘chaplain’ banned christmas carols and made it a center of jewish swindling (the ecnomomist who helped ethnic jews loot russia_ and jewish activism – dershowitz advocates torturing palestinians – another prof now calls for their genocide.
Whites were the ONLY ones who broke down their ethnic networking under this one-sided ‘meritocracy’
Brooks probably does not see it, because he probably engages in the same self -deceit (we’re jews, we’re better, of course we’ll be over represented)
He is purported, however, to read Sailer’s column, at least to make sure he is doesn’t look as ridiculous as Thomas Friedman’s columns (has he ever been right, about, anything?)
The old elite had a sense of civic responsibility and national interest
Right now, jews are in a full scale myopic looting of the country to the point of destroying even the reserves whites built up over time – Jews trashed the Disney name’s trust w/ families to push multiculti rubbish and gay advocacy, jew trashed harvards rep (as Brooks implies) for their own gain. Harvard no longer produces gentlemen who will lead, whom we turn over the keys of trust.. it produces shysters out to make a quick buck while advocating killing palestininans.
Jews, if they had their total way, would develop every piece of land, parks included, that WASPs set aside for prosterity, they would commercialize every musuem, monetize every university, until there was nothing left. They simply do not care.
“I am trying to emphasize more how the left changed in the 1960s from being pro-working class to being pro-multicultural and pro-mass immigration. The deep structure there, although I don’t mention it in the article, is that the Jewish intellectual movements that became dominant had given up on the revolutionary potential of the White working class because they had supported fascism. The only solution was to import an entirely new people.”
————
I think anyone who has been involved with the American labor movement, and in real world politics would agree with your analysis. That is anyone who is not coming from a Jewish/communist/socialist/Trotskyite/Maosit etc. perspective. LOL.
Geiseric,
A small number of Jews were running the Russian Government in the 90′s.
Putin changed all that by removing the most important Jews, and even more importantly forcing the other rich Jews to stay out of politics.
Whether this makes him Anti-Jewish, or just healthily power hungry, doesn’t change the fact that the really important Jews like George Soros hate Putin and prop up Anti-Putin politicians in Countries like Ukraine and Georgia.
me says:
Whites were the ONLY ones who broke down their ethnic networking under this one-sided ‘meritocracy’ …
That whites characteristically put their own individual interests ahead of their racial interests is more proof of their lack of racial cohesion.
The old elite had a sense of civic responsibility and national interest
So Lincoln launched the Civil War out of a sense of civic responsibility and national interest? And Wilson WWI? And FDR WWII? And Truman desgregated the military for that reason? And DDE the schools? Clearly, the white race can’t survive such fine elites, so full are they of civic responsibility and concern for the national interest.
But I’ll give you this much: At least you aren’t trying to tell us they acted out of racial responsibility and racial interest, a view some here still doggedly push.
The incredibly prolific and prolix Sailer often makes some good points, and dares to tread where many a white journalist won’t go. I always take what he has to say with a grain of salt, however. I’m not sure how many of you here know that Sailer, who was an adopted child, suspects that he may be half Jewish, has described himself as “pro-Semitic”, and appears to look forward to a day in the not-so-distant future when all the American elites will have substantial Jewish ancestry. He outed himself in a post in his Yahoo evolutionary psychology group, reproduced here:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000770.html
So Lincoln launched the Civil War out of a sense of civic responsibility and national interest?
adam, bad mistakes by bad politicians are very different from an overall sense of custodianship that the old elite had – compare to the jewish elite. How many parks have jews advocated for? How many memorials for heritage? How many museums for the general good,??? in the old days WASPs raised money and founded libraries (the new York public library started this way) and museums..today jews divert tax money to fund holocaust memorials and jewish studies courses. Its a very different elite.
Reginald,
There is no doubt that Jews were more influential in the 1990s than under Putin. But the same could be said about everyone else in Russia. Yeltsin decentralized the power structure, and Putin re-centralized it – according to the traditional way Russia has been ruled over the centuries.
He forced everyone to stay out of politics – not just Jews. KGB does not care about ethnicity. Putin is a traditional Russian imperialist, not an ethnic nationalist.
Soros & Co dislike Putin, because Putin is bad for (international) business. In my book, that doesn’t make him a pro-White hero, and the Jews you claim to be somehow removed, are still around in Russia, and still overrepresented among the oligarchs.
If Putin is anti-anything, it is anti-Western, anti-Estonian, anti-Germanic.
me says:
adam, bad mistakes by bad politicians are very different from an overall sense of custodianship that the old elite had – compare to the jewish elite. How many parks have jews advocated for? How many memorials for heritage? How many museums for the general good,??? in the old days WASPs raised money and founded libraries (the new York public library started this way) and museums..today jews divert tax money to fund holocaust memorials and jewish studies courses. Its a very different elite.
The Sierra Club is still advocating for parks and such, even though, as I pointed out in a previous thread, it has fallen under Jewish control. Moreover, there are plenty of Jews who have endowed chairs at universities all over the country. How do you think they gained control of academia? As for museums, they do fund them (how about the Guggenheim or MOMA?), although for a lot of reasons modern art is more of a pestilence than a benefit. The whole picture is a quite a bit more complicated than you appear to think.
I would suggest that you are really complaining about is that the white elites didn’t fund any specifically white causes, but instead funded things “for the general good”, whereas the Jews have a different idea of the general good, identifying it with their own interests. But this is to be expected. Whites lacked racial cohesion, and with few exceptions such as Lindbergh and Ford, their elites had no real concern for them, and for that reason they lost the battle. To the victor go the spoils.
We shouldn’t be tempted to portray the white lack of racial cohesion as a virtue. It wasn’t, and isn’t.
Geiseric,
Explain to me how Putin is bad for international business.
If anything the World Economy is FAR better off because Putin saved Russia from having to default on too many of its debt payments.
Soros and company dislike Putin because he stopped the Rothschild Family from looting the Russian Economy out of existence, thereby saving the Russian people from mass starvation.
“If Putin is anti-anything, it is anti-Western, anti-Estonian, anti-Germanic.”
When you consider that the West and Germany are rabidly Anti-White and Pro-Jewish, I fail to see how that’s a bad thing.
Also, no other World Leader in the last 40 years has done anything half so good for Whites as Putin’s Pro-Natality programs, which have already had a salutary effect after being kicked off in 2007.
Reginald,
Some of your comments reveal disagreemenents too profound to be discussed here. If you doubt that Putin is bad for international business, start reading The Economist, Financial Times etc. I don’t subscribe to the Rothschilds-are-behind-every-evil-theory. Putin is even bad for Russian economy in a longterm perspective. Just read president Medvedev’s indirect critique on his presidential blog.
“My enemy’s enemy is my friend” is not always true. If you think that Putinist Russia is out there to save European and American Whites, you’re wrong. Russia has a long history of hostility to the West – centuries before our countries became multi-ethnicized. You have 1000 years of history against you.
Putin’s pro-natality programs are not much to talk about in terms of results, and they are not based on concepts of ethnicity (depending on your definition of the term White, of course).
Geiseric,
“I don’t subscribe to the Rothschilds-are-behind-every-evil-theory.”
They were certainly behind the near Genocide of the Russian people that occured under Boris Yeltsin.
“Putin is even bad for Russian economy in a longterm perspective.”
So now you can see into the future?
“If you think that Putinist Russia is out there to save European and American Whites, you’re wrong. Russia has a long history of hostility to the West – centuries before our countries became multi-ethnicized.”
Who said I want Putin to save the West? For me saving Russia is tall enough an order for anyone, and I’d hate for him to be distracted by our problems.
“Putin’s pro-natality programs are not much to talk about in terms of results,”
Yes they have.
Since Putin took office the crude number of births to Russian women has increased 33%.
That’s almost 400,000 extra births per year!
Also, there were big increases in the Russian Total Fertility Rate that started being seen right after Putin’s Pro-Natality programs were implemented in 2007, and in 2009 Russia’s population actually increased for the first time in decades!
“Russia sees first population increase in 15 years
Vladimir Putin made stemming population decline a priority
Russia has bucked a long-term trend of population decline by recording its first annual increase in 15 years, its health minister has announced.
The population grew in 2009 by between 15,000 and 25,000 to more than 141.9 million, Tatyana Golikova said, quoting preliminary figures.
Much of the growth is due to a falling death rate and increasing migration.
But births also rose, with 2.8% more babies born last year than in 2008, the Russian health minister said.
The rise in population was predicted last month by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin who, as president, brought in policies to stem population decline.
The decline has traditionally been blamed on emigration, alcoholism, poor healthcare and poverty.
Low population predictions have been a key factor in economic forecasts which see Russia growing much more slowly over the next 20 years than China, Brazil and India.
US bank Goldman Sachs has said that a change in population forecasts could significantly change the long-term growth projections for Russia, whose economy contracted by at least 8.5% in 2009, its biggest annual decline in 15 years, Reuters news agency reported.
‘Russia is perhaps the least predictable and possibly the one with the scope to surprise the most,’ Goldman economist Jim O’Neill wrote, in a report last month, adding that Russia’s economy could overtake Germany’s in 2029 and Japan’s in 2037. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8468185.stm
Note carefully that births INCREASED last year in spite of the Russian economy having problems.
That shows how powerful the Pro-Natality programs are.
“They were certainly behind the near Genocide of the Russian people that occured under Boris Yeltsin.”
There’s a difference between low birth rates, mass alcoholism, mass migrations, and genocide. There was no genocide under Yeltsin.
“So now you can see into the future?”
Putin makes the Russian economy totally dependent on export of natural resources. The result is a decline in R&D, hi-tech, science etc. Which is usually bad for a country’s economy in a longterm perspective.
“Who said I want Putin to save the West? For me saving Russia is tall enough an order for anyone, and I’d hate for him to be distracted by our problems.”
In short: your concern is the future of Russia, not of peoples of Western European descent? If yes, why not make contributions to “The Oriental Observer”?
“Since Putin took office the crude number of births to Russian women has increased 33%.”
Source?
Why would Russian birth rates be of any interest or concern to WASP Americans or Western Europeans?
“In short: your concern is the future of Russia, not of peoples of Western European descent?”
I care as much about the future of Russia as I do about the future of people of Western European descent.
I could give a rat’s ass about a direction, what matters is the White Race and making sure we hold on to as much territory as possible.
“In short: your concern is the future of Russia, not of peoples of Western European descent? If yes, why not make contributions to ‘The Oriental Observer’?”
The Orient includes a lot of Non-White Countries like China, and therefore I’m not going to go out of my way to help the Orient in its entirety.
“Source?”
See here:
**********************************************
“Yet although from 1999-2007 the crude number of births increased by 33% from 1,214,700 to 1,610,100, only 37% of that increase was due to an increase in the size of the childbearing age segment of the population. The other 63% is due to the rise in the TFR, which is independent of the population’s age structure by definition. In 2007, these two figures widened to 10% and 90%, respectively. So the common doomer argument that recent increases in the birth rate are exclusively down to the current youth bulge is at best only a third valid for Putin’s whole term, and almost totally false for the past two years.”
http://www.russiablog.org/2009/04/russias_fertility_future.php
***************************************************
“Why would Russian birth rates be of any interest or concern to WASP Americans or Western Europeans?”
Because, as the great man Richard Lynn said:
“I remain pessimistic about the probability of curtailing immigration in North America and Western Europe. I think the main hope for the survival of the European peoples is Eastern Europe including Russia.”
Do you have any indications that Russians in general, or the Putinist regime, identifies with what you call “the White race”?
President Medvedev disagrees with Reginald:
“Every year there are fewer and fewer Russians. Alcoholism, smoking, traffic accidents, the lack of availability of many medical technologies, and environmental problems take millions of lives. And the emerging rise in births has not compensated for our declining population. … To sum up, an inefficient economy, semi-Soviet social sphere, fragile democracy, negative demographic trends, and unstable Caucasus represent very big problems, even for a country such as Russia.”
“Centuries of corruption have debilitated Russia from time immemorial. Until today this corrosion has been due to the excessive government presence in many significant aspects of economic and other social activities. But it is not limited to governmental excess — business is also not without fault. Many entrepreneurs are not worried about finding talented inventors, introducing unique technologies, creating and marketing new products, but rather with bribing officials for the sake of ‘controlling the flows’ of property redistribution.”
“Paternalistic attitudes are widespread in our society, such as the conviction that all problems should be resolved by the government. Or by someone else, but never by the person who is actually there. The desire to make a career from scratch, to achieve personal success step by step is not one of our national habits. This is reflected in a lack of initiative, lack of new ideas, outstanding unresolved issues, the poor quality of public debate, including criticism. Public acceptance and support is usually expressed in silence. Objections are very often emotional, scathing, but superficial and irresponsible. Well, this is not the first century that Russia has had to confront these phenomena.”
http://eng.kremlin.ru/speeches/2009/09/10/1534_type104017_221527.shtml
“Do you have any indications that Russians in general, or the Putinist regime, identifies with what you call ‘the White race’?”
There are Skinhead groups in Russia who march in honor of Hitler’s birthday, for clearly racial reasons.
Also take a look at how Non-Russian White Immigrants are treated in comparison to the very small minority of Non-Russian Non-White Immigrants.
All the attacks on Immigrants are on the later, even though the Non-Russian White Immigrants can be easily identified by language and other cultural traits.
Finally, if you try telling a Russian you don’t think Russians are White, there’s a good chance you’ll get punched in the face.
You didn’t answer my question (“Russians in general”, “Putinist regime”, not Skinhead groups). Skinhead groups have been increasingly marginalized under Putin, and racial nationalists strongly dislike his regime. Many of them are imprisoned. One of the leaders of a radical nationalist group, Edward Limonov, has been imprisoned several times, and has now joined forces with the (Jewish) opposition leader Garry Kasparov.
It’s game over for racial nationalists in Putin’s Russia, and (being an unsignificant minority) they were never a force to be reckoned with. Russia is and has always been a multi-ethnic empire and will remain so. And there is no hint of ethnic nationalism in Putin’s rhetoric. His popularity in Russia is based on his anti-Western, anti-American rhetoric.
I asked whether Russians in general identify as Whites. Referring to their well known, violent, and irrational reactions is not an answer.
For you to assume that racially motivated violence on the part of Russians is irrational shows a puerile and idiotic sensibility.
Anti-Immigrant Violence is highly rational from the standpoint of achieving the goal of defending territory from racially alien invaders through the use of the deterrence effect.
Therefore your effort to dismiss this form of violence as some kind of irrational “out of nowhere” thing without relevance to your question is completely without merit.
Anyone with an understanding of Statistics and the implications of the Normal Distribution will realize the significance of the fact that the most intense expression of Russian Ethnocentrism is directed exclusively against Non-Whites.
The only possible explanation of this is that Russian Ethnocentrism is a phenomenon oriented toward other Whites, and against Non-Whites.
“Russia is and has always been a multi-ethnic empire and will remain so.”
Russians are the dominant Majority of people in Russia, and almost everyone else is White.
If you want to talk about a fragmented Empire with no Cultural or Racial Identity, you should talk about America.
“And there is no hint of ethnic nationalism in Putin’s rhetoric.”
Read the 18th Page of Patrick Buchanan’s ‘Death of the West”.
The quote of Putin addressing the Duma is a blatant and magnificent example of Ethnic Nationalism, and in case you aren’t smart enough to notice the numbers Putin quoted were only for Russians.
And in any event, even if for some strange reason Russians suffered from the delusion that they aren’t White, what difference would it make?
They’d still be White, and I’d still care about them.
It’s like if my brother was falsely convinced that he was adopted.
He’d still be my brother, and I’d still care about him.
Hey, Gelseric. We see what you’re doing. Stop stirring up intra-White fractiousness. Russians are White. When the Russian birth rate goes up relative to blacks and Jews, it’s a damn good thing.
“How many parks have jews advocated for? How many memorials for heritage? How many museums for the general good”
Hey, they build Holocaust Museums all over the place, don’t they?
http://www.elpasoholocaustmuseum.org/
And they have almost completely taken over White classical music and high art. (/sarcasm)
@Reginald: You seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth. I commented on the generally high level of irrational behavior/mentality in Russia. This has also been pointed out by numerous Russian authors throughout history (Tyutchev, for example).
“Anyone with an understanding of Statistics and the implications of the Normal Distribution will realize the significance of the fact that the most intense expression of Russian Ethnocentrism is directed exclusively against Non-Whites.”
Your passion for statistics and normal distribution becomes increasingly irrelevant as long as your grasp of the facts on the ground remains as unsteady as your system of concepts is shaky. Russians do not constitute an ethnic nation, or an ethnic group. Russians are united by empire, not by blood. This is common knowledge to any connoisseur of Russian history. Hence, there is no such thing as Russian “ethnocentricism”. Such concepts are entirely imported and copied from the West, and have never been part of mainstream Russian consciousness.
“Russians are the dominant Majority of people in Russia, and almost everyone else is White.”
The category you call Russians contains a very heterogenous crowd. Would your definition of White also include Hispanics and Jews? Turks? Iranians?
“Read the 18th Page of Patrick Buchanan’s ‘Death of the West”.”
Pat Buchanan is not an authority on Russia. He knows a lot about the history of the Western world, but Russia is not his cup of tea.
“And in any event, even if for some strange reason Russians suffered from the delusion that they aren’t White, what difference would it make?”
They might turn against you and your kin. Not so long ago, they threatened the Western world with nuclear annihilation. The last 30 years or so of the Soviet period, Jews played no significant role in those threats.
@Sean G:
“Russians are White.”
What’s your definition of White? Are Hispanics or Mestizos White?
“Russians do not constitute an ethnic nation, or an ethnic group.”
Yes they do constitute an ethnic group, you jackass. Look up the word Ethnic Group in a Dictionary.
“Russians are united by empire, not by blood.”
There’s every reason to think they are united by Blood.
Just look at Figure 3 in this Scientific Paper, where all the Russians cluster very closely together:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687795/pdf/gb-2009-10-1-r7.pdf
“The category you call Russians contains a very heterogenous crowd.”
No.
“Would your definition of White also include Hispanics and Jews? Turks? Iranians?”
Your sloppiness is showing here. ‘Hispanic’ is not a racial group, and thus asking whether they are a part of the White Race doesn’t make any sense.
Some ‘Hispanics’ are of purely Spanish blood, and thus are White, but others are not.
The other groups you mention fall outside a genetic cluster that includes Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Germans, Danes, Swedes, White Americans, etc.
In fact, most of the Russians tested in the study I mentioned genetically overlapped with White Americans.
In contrast, only a tiny minority of the Ashkenazi Jews tested overlapped with the White American cluster.
Therefore while Russians are White, the groups you mention are instead Middle Eastern Caucasians.
Though I must admit the ancient ties between the Persian Race and the genetic and cultural fathers of the White Race might make them a borderline case.
“Pat Buchanan is not an authority on Russia. He knows a lot about the history of the Western world, but Russia is not his cup of tea.”
The Putin quote was accurate though, and thus my point is completely unaltered by your observation.
“They might turn against you and your kin.”
But there’s no evidence that the Russians have any desire to be Anti-White or Anti-Western.
When Anti-Western Muslims stole land from the White Western Serbs in Kosovo, the Anti-White Swine running America and Western Europe were the ones who supported it, while Putin and the Russians were against it.
Putin has problems with the Anti-Russian Neocons who have all too much control over the American Government.
He has nothing against Non-Russian White people, even if he may care more about the Russian kind of White people due to healthy feelings of patriotism and cultural affinity.
“Not so long ago, they threatened the Western world with nuclear annihilation.”
No more than we threatened them with Nuclear Annihilation. You might recall that the USSR only got nuclear weapons in response to America getting nuclear weapons and then callously using them on defenseless civilians.
“The last 30 years or so of the Soviet period, Jews played no significant role in those threats.”
Khrushchev was the only Soviet in the Post-Jewish era who made significant threats against America. And guess what? He was a Trotskyite Ideologue who never would’ve done or spoke like he did if it wasn’t for Jewish Thinkers having a Powerful Influence on him.
After Khrushchev and the waning of Jewish ideological influence, the Russians returned to their natural state of dealing with the West in a reasonable and balanced manner.
If anyone was the aggressor in the last decades of the Soviet period, it was America with its funding of Anti-Soviet Muslim Terrorists in Afghanistan and Nun Slaughtering Contras in the Central America.
“What’s your definition of White?”
Any person or group that is part of a genetic cluster that is isolated from non-European groups, while still being genetically close in the grand scheme of things to the lighter skinned Northern African and Middle Eastern Caucasians.
“Are…Mestizos White?”
Obviously Mestizoes aren’t White. They are primarily descended from Non-European groups in Mesoamerica who didn’t bear the slightest similarity to Whites.
And if you look at the Genetic Studies, you find that even Iranians are FAR more closely related to American Whites than Mestizoes are.
http://statsaholic.blogspot.com/2009/12/startling-new-research-shows-that.html
Therefore even if my definition of White included Iranians, I would still be forced to exclude Mestizoes.
How much more so can my definition of White include Russians, while I exclude Mestizoes!
” ‘Hispanic’ is not a racial group, and thus asking whether they are a part of the White Race doesn’t make any sense. Some ‘Hispanics’ are of purely Spanish blood, and thus are White, but others are not.”
The same could be said about Russians. Some are Whites, others are not. They do not constitute a meaningful ethnic or racial entity.
“But there’s no evidence that the Russians have any desire to be Anti-White or Anti-Western.”
They have at least a five centuries-long history of anti-Western hostility.
“He has nothing against Non-Russian White people, even if he may care more about the Russian kind of White people due to healthy feelings of patriotism and cultural affinity.”
Russian patriotism is imperial, not ethnic or racial. Anti-Western, particularly anti-Germanic, attitudes have been – and still are – fundamental to the Russian imperialistic mindset. Putin is no exception.
“Any person or group that is part of a genetic cluster that is isolated from non-European groups, while still being genetically close in the grand scheme of things to the lighter skinned Northern African and Middle Eastern Caucasians.”
The Russians have never been isolated from non-European groups. Take a look at the map.
I’m looking at this frenzied discussion about Russia and I honestly think Geiseric is completely nailing it. These thoughts on Russia are contentions I’ve maintained for a while now. I’ve studied Putin’s foreign policy, and the truth is I think he’s almost entirely non-racial in his stances. I just read an article about him attending some hip hop concert to talk about how hip hop is a great tool for promoting pro-Russian causes. He doesn’t seem exactly like Mr. White Nationalist to me. Didn’t he take Abramovich under his wing? What was that, just political rhetoric? Was he not one of those oligarchs?
That being said, I do think Putin has been a good leader, and I do think Russia’s foreign policy has dramatically improved since his leadership, but his strategy of economic reliance on Russian energy is going to fail if it isn’t altered in any way.
The more I look at white nationalism, the more I see a complete and total delusion on its part. The white nationalists look at Russia, and after so many decades of considering it an alien barbarian culture, they now say, “Hey! They’re beginning to succeed and they have real authority! They must be on our side!” but unfortunately there’s very little to suggest this is the case. Bear in mind what BRIC stands for. Western culture is weak, despondent, deracinated and ultimately on the verge of extinction, and no, Russia has no real sympathies for it or interest in preserving it. Sorry.
I sincerely hope that Westerners do not attempt to assimilate into Russian culture as everything falls apart, because they will most likely bring to it a form of materialism and cultural sterility that the West has had to endure with the Jews, and the Arabs have had to endure with the Romans, and so on into the recesses of cultural history. The center of Russia is Moscow. Not St. Petersburg. Bear this in mind, white man.
“The same could be said about Russians. Some are Whites, others are not.”
Show me a single example of a full blooded Russian with more than 15% of their genes coming from Non-White sources.
“They do not constitute a meaningful ethnic or racial entity.”
Even if your right about things on a genetic level, which you aren’t, it shows how retarded you are that you persist in saying Russians aren’t an Ethnic Group.
They all speak Russian, don’t they? They are all part of the same Russian cultural complex at least to the same extent that every British person is a part of the same British cultural complex.
That’s all it takes to make an Ethnic Group.
“They have at least a five centuries-long history of anti-Western hostility.”
Yeah, how dare those no good Russians have defended themselves against Napoleon’s unprovoked invasion! It shows how “Anti-Western” they are that they didn’t throw down their weapons and offer up their women to be raped by French soldiers.
“The Russians have never been isolated from non-European groups. Take a look at the map.”
Genetically they were isolated. There is a small Mongoloid substrate that is stronger the further east you go, but even in Siberia the Russians have ancestries dominated by Whites.
This is because of the remarkable racial conquest of Russia that was achieved in Medieval times by the Rus, an ancient race of Whites.
Probably the average Russian is less Mongoloid than the average American White is Negroid.
This is because almost all the Non-White gene flow went into Caucasian races to the South of the Russians, like the Chechens.
Reginald: With all due respect, what exactly are you trying to argue? The the Russians are uniformly white? I can understand you liking them, but why exactly do you think they would love you, or whatever it is you’re trying to imply?
Are you thinking about learning to speak Russian fluently and becoming inbred with the Slavs? If I had to guess the outcome of this strategy, I’d say that any American/West European expatriate who attempts this strategy would be seen by a genuine Russian as thoroughly and totally alien to the Russian cultural sensibility and thus treated as a foreigner, hardly any different than a Chinese man who would do the same.
I don’t think Western man is ever to be warmly greeted by the Russians – only, if anything, merely tolerated.
I still am proud of the Russians though. I hope they do very well for themselves. But it’s more the way I’m impressed with, say, Malcolm X or some fellow of that ilk. It’s nice to see people have pride and dignity, but don’t assume that this pride and dignity is automatically compatible with you, or whoever you represent. To begin to even say, “But genetics! But IQ scores! But Darwin!” seems to suggest an almost perverse sort of materilasm, a kind totally alien to the way the common Russian thinks. But I guess time will tell on that one.
DDDD,
“Western culture is weak, despondent, deracinated and ultimately on the verge of extinction, and no, Russia has no real sympathies for it or interest in preserving it. Sorry.”
That’s fine with me. If we can’t save ourselves, we don’t deserve to be saved.
“I don’t think Western man is ever to be warmly greeted by the Russians – only, if anything, merely tolerated.”
We don’t need to be warmly greeted. The important thing is for us to avoid fratricidal conflict.
“I sincerely hope that Westerners do not attempt to assimilate into Russian culture as everything falls apart, because they will most likely bring to it a form of materialism and cultural sterility that the West has had to endure with the Jews, and the Arabs have had to endure with the Romans, and so on into the recesses of cultural history.”
I have no desire to displace the Russians on either a genetic or cultural level. Nor do I have any desire to Americanize their wonderful culture.
If things get really bad for American Whites we can move to a place like Australia, where we’d be a better fit with their customs of living.
“With all due respect, what exactly are you trying to argue? The the Russians are uniformly white? I can understand you liking them, but why exactly do you think they would love you, or whatever it is you’re trying to imply?”
Geiseric was saying that Russians are Anti-Western and I was defending them against this false and needlessly divisive charge.
“I still am proud of the Russians though. I hope they do very well for themselves. But it’s more the way I’m impressed with, say, Malcolm X or some fellow of that ilk.”
Malcolm X was Black, and his success was therefore bad for us.
In contrast, the success of the Russians is good for us in the same evolutionary way that it’s good for someone when his relatives are successful.
And the thing is that it’s good for your relatives to succeed OF ITSELF, and even if they refuse to bail you out of jail after you do something stupid like driving drunk or molesting a 14 year old girl.
I’m with you up to the last part. My analogy stands because if some fringe group like the NOI succeeded, blacks would have separated from whites voluntarily and each culture would have been able to pursue its own goals. Same applies to Garvey’s beliefs. Similarly, if Russia succeeds, it plays a hand in bringing down globalization and the US dollar as a global reserve currency, which is done in its own self-interest, but is de facto helpful to our own destructive and suicidal tendencies. If you respect and admire Russian culture today, I agree with you. If you think that their own personal organic necessities of life are the same as ours, I would say you are on shaky ground.
And as far as Geiseric’s argument goes, I might have read it wrong, but he seemed to be saying that Russian and Western culture are incommensurable, and that the Russians have no vested interest in our survival — not so much that they’re directly hostile. If I read it correctly, I think this is pretty much correct.
“I’m with you up to the last part. My analogy stands because if some fringe group like the NOI succeeded, blacks would have separated from whites voluntarily and each culture would have been able to pursue its own goals.”
That’s a an excellent point.
“And as far as Geiseric’s argument goes, I might have read it wrong, but he seemed to be saying that Russian and Western culture are incommensurable, and that the Russians have no vested interest in our survival — not so much that they’re directly hostile.”
He used the term “Anti-Western Hostility”.
Good to see that DDDD has seen the meaningless nonsense promoted by the pro-Russian lobby.
Reginald:
“Even if your right about things on a genetic level, which you aren’t, it shows how retarded you are that you persist in saying Russians aren’t an Ethnic Group. They all speak Russian, don’t they? They are all part of the same Russian cultural complex at least to the same extent that every British person is a part of the same British cultural complex.”
“Brits” – as Russians – do not constitute an ethnic group. You said it yourself, British (and Russian) is a cultural and linguistic concept. An ethnic group is defined by a concept (often a myth) of common origin.
“Yeah, how dare those no good Russians have defended themselves against Napoleon’s unprovoked invasion!”
They were anti-Western long before Napoleon. Anti-Western hostility is part of the Russian cultural instinct, it’s part of their cultural DNA. With or without Napoleon, communism etc.
“Genetically they were isolated. There is a small Mongoloid substrate that is stronger the further east you go, but even in Siberia the Russians have ancestries dominated by Whites.”
This is nonsense. The Eurasian plain has no natural borders, and Russia has been a crossroads for virtually every migration for the past 1500 years. From its very beginning in the Kievan Rus, “Russians” have been surrounded by non-European groups (mostly Turkic) with whom they comingled and interacted. This is obvious both in their appearance, their DNA, culture and language.
Ah, fair enough. On reviewing his arguments, he seems to be mischaracterizing Putin as well. I did, however, like his initial points that Putin’s economic actions were not done under some grand ideology, which I’d say is the more correct assertion in regards to the dismantling of the oligarchs’ power. His point about low fertility rates is also a good point, although the pro-natal campaigns have shown some effectiveness.
To claim that Putin is part of a long line of virulent Russian anti-Westernism that’s part of an innate “cultural DNA,” however, doesn’t seem historically founded in the slightest.
So he seems somewhat irrational. But I would argue that this love affair toward the Russians from white nationalist organizations who see in them some glimmer of “Western hope” is equally irrational.
“To claim that Putin is part of a long line of virulent Russian anti-Westernism that’s part of an innate “cultural DNA,” however, doesn’t seem historically founded in the slightest.”
It is as well founded historically as possible, it’s part of mainstream historiography. Anti-Westernism has been fundamental to the national consciousness and identity of Russians – at least since the times of Ivan the Terrible. Sure, this is not the whole picture, there have been other voices and forces within Russia. But the dominant trend has been an anti-Western (first anti-European, then anti-American) inclination. Russia is Europe’s “Other”.
Check out Geoffrey Hosking’s “Russia and the Russians: A History” (London: The Penguin Press, 2001). A good read.
“This is obvious both in their appearance, their DNA, culture and language.”
What the hell are you talking about?
Russians speak an Indo-European Language, not a Turkic language, and genetic testing shows they almost completely overlap with White Americans.
Honestly, what did Russians ever do you to you that you keep making things about them?
I mean: “making things up about them.”
“Brits” – as Russians – do not constitute an ethnic group.”
Huh?
“You said it yourself, British (and Russian) is a cultural and linguistic concept.”
Shared Culture and Linguistics are what makes an Ethnic Group.
“An ethnic group is defined by a concept (often a myth) of common origin.”
Says who?
Even though Russian belongs to the Indo-European family of languages, it has been heavily influenced by non-European (Turkic, Finno-Ugric etc.) languages. I need to know more about the dogging of data to consider your genetic maps. It’s not surprising, for example, if Americans of Russian origin completely overlap with Russians. And, as already mentioned, Russians do not constitute a homogeneous ethnic group. Northern Russians have another ethnic history than southern Russians, and the settlers that ensured the constant territorial expansion throughout the centuries, often took local wives (hence the “cacophony” in Y-chromosomal and mtDNA). Remember that the term “Russian” for centuries meant “Orthodox”. Anyone – regardless of ethnic background – could become Russian through baptism.
“Brits” – as Russians – do not constitute an ethnic group.”
Huh?
Ethnic designations: English, Scottish etc. Cultural/Linguistic/Political designations: British, Russian etc.
Says who?
Anthony D. Smith, among others.
How is this discussion on genetics anything more than a red herring if both populations are isolated and pursuing their own paths of political/economic stratification? If mating standards in one culture are different from that of another, the genetics would follow suit after time. It’s not as though the Sunnis and Shi’ites who are constantly warring are doing so because of any genetic discrepancy. In fact I’d say this materialist obsession with genetics is something uniquely Western. Rarely do I come across Russian academics with as much fetishistic interest in this as the Westerners. Of course I could be wrong on that last point, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate otherwise.
I agree that genetics is not the most important part of this discussion. Population genetics is a science still in its infancy (especially in Russia). I disagree that genetics is a materialist obsession. If anything, it is a geneaological, or “numerical obsession” (some would probably prefer “objectivistic” or “positivistic”) with nature’s codes. As we all know, the materialist train of thought has been very prominent in Russia, and many Russian scientists are heavily involved in this kind of research.
Of course, you could claim that science (or at least the scientific worldview), the concept of race etc., are uniquely Western. But I fail to see that there’s anything uniquely western in materialism. Disenchanted materialism, perhaps, but not materialism itself.
That’s why I specified it as being a certain type of materialism, and I mean the term in the sense that connotes a worldview that posits that all knowledge can be deduced through a rigorous mechanistic process of empiricism and positivistic data accumulation (this, I think, is where I’m not at all similar to other race-conscious people).
It just makes very little sense to me to hear someone say, “Well, theoretically, we should all get along because our genetics are the same.” Just look at Africa, an area so accustomed to be made up of sovereign small bands that they’ll pick virtually any reason for conflict and lack of unity. If genetics fails to be the dividing line between two distinct peoples, it’ll be something else to do it. Linguistic differences, religious differences, greed, etc.
My point is ultimately that genetics has nothing to do with the irreconcilability between Russia and the West. You can even say, “Oh, but both populations have the same IQ scores!” and it doesn’t matter whatsoever, because a man’s values, aesthetics, politics, economics and erotics aren’t determined solely by his IQ. and his inward organic needs are on a plane entirely incommensurable with the whole notion of genetics and IQ and etc.
But seeing this discussion has actually given me a thought: perhaps it is the genetic analyses from folks like JP Rushton, Richard Lynn, et al that mislead people into thinking that white Russians and the rest of Europe are cut from the same cloth? I’ll have to think about it some more.
I think your approach is very healthy and 21st-century. The 18th/19th-century mechanistic worldview still lives (as a ghost?) in the minds of many scientists (there are still psychology professors that never really left Wundt’s laboratories).
I agree on the genetics and IQ argument, but the enormous differences in culture between Western Europe and Russia strike me as potentially founded in different evolutionary pre-history (or, as you seem to suggest, just different history).
Sure, the West vs Russia dichotomy can easily be explained by cultural history (see, for example, Orlando Figes’ book “Natasha’s Dance”), completely different family structures etc. But is that the whole story? I don’t know.
Russia has been ruled by Western European elites for centuries (first the Scandinavians in the Kievan period, then the Germans, French etc. in the post-Petrine Petersburg period). But their culture remained an elite phenomenon, and never had any deeper impact on the larger population.
“I need to know more about the dogging of data to consider your genetic maps.”
In a PCA, the individuals tested are closer together if they are more related. If one is depicted on top of the other, it means they are nearly identical in comparison to the average individual tested.
“It’s not surprising, for example, if Americans of Russian origin completely overlap with Russians.”
At 20% of the 556 White Gentile Americans tested overlapped with the Russians tested.
The chances that a sample of 556 White Americans would turn out to be 20% Russian-American is infinitesimal when you consider that Russians are well less than 2% of American Whites.
“And, as already mentioned, Russians do not constitute a homogeneous ethnic group. Northern Russians have another ethnic history than southern Russians…”
Do you have any reason to think the Russians tested in the study were only from the North?
Anyway, even though they didn’t specify whether the Russians came from the North or South, they did analyze 17 members of the Adygei, a group from the Caucasus with origins to the south of even the most southerly Russians.
What they found is that even most of the Adygei overlap with American Whites, with more than 70% of them perfectly overlapping with European-Americans!
So just imagine how much Southern Russians must overlap with White Americans.
I guess the European perspective is a bit different from the American one in this regard. In Europe, it just doesn’t make much sense – even now in the multi-ethnic context of the 21st century – to say that we’re all Whites. People from the Balkans or from Russia are usually easily recognizable in their behavior and appearances, and they tend to be seen as exotic, hot-headed, deeply foreign.
“How is this discussion on genetics anything more than a red herring if both populations are isolated and pursuing their own paths of political/economic stratification? If mating standards in one culture are different from that of another, the genetics would follow suit after time.”
There hasn’t been much genetic divergence in thousands of years.
Anyway, what does the distant future have to do with anything?
My brother could become the father of different Tribe, does something that could happen in the future stop him from being my brother?
“It’s not as though the Sunnis and Shi’ites who are constantly warring are doing so because of any genetic discrepancy.”
How do you know? At least in Iran the Shiites are descended from the Persians, whereas the Sunnis in Iraq are descended mostly from Arab Tribesmen.
So with the Sunnis and Shiites their ancestors going back to the dawn of known time weren’t even speaking languages from the same family.
This might indicate significant racial differences.
After all, the Middle East is not Europe, and probably doesn’t share Europe’s extremely unusual degree of Genetic Uniformity.
“In fact I’d say this materialist obsession with genetics is something uniquely Western. Rarely do I come across Russian academics with as much fetishistic interest in this as the Westerners.”
What exactly do they do all day, sit around Ouija Boards to consort with the Spirit World?
You’re saying they don’t care about this funny old thing called material reality. I find that hard to believe.
“It just makes very little sense to me to hear someone say, ‘Well, theoretically, we should all get along because our genetics are the same.’”
I don’t recall saying that.
My point was that I have a profound genetic stake in the success of the Russian People due to our relatedness.
Obviously there’s been far too many fratricidal conflicts even in Western History, especially in the wicked time called the 20th Century.
Nothing says there couldn’t be more such conflicts, if we aren’t careful.
Thank God Almighty in the Heavens above that John McCain, that Jew controlled piece of shit who wanted to murder as many Whites in Russia as he could, lost the 2008 Presidential Election.
Obama has had an intelligent Russia policy, and as long as we keep having Presidents like him and Russia avoids having leaders like Khrushchev, everything’s going to be fine.
I understand what you are saying Geiseric. Probably to Western Europeans who’ve been civilized for so long a primal and deep feeling people like the Russians would seem strange.
With me as an American though, looking at Russian cultural traits I feel like I’m looking at something familiar, like they remind me of the crazy men who shot their way across a wild Continent, only stopping when they reached the Pacific Ocean.
The problem with “material reality” is that every time someone says, “Oh, this is the secret aspect to material reality that we haven’t gotten before!” they’re typically missing some other factor that easily could belong under “material reality.” That’s what makes materialism so wonderful: it’s a theoretical way of looking at life, and as such, it can’t be wrong. How could it? Of course I’ve seen plenty of Christian fundamentalists make great arguments that the materialists have horribly screwed up on, and they’ve done so in the lens of their Christianity, as irrational and absurd as it might be. They just so happened to hit on the truth whereas the materialists were off doing their own thing and merely arriving at the wrong conclusions. Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud were pretty sure that they had figured out the material realities of money and sex.
If you think everyone wants to know the truth about something or other, then sure, I’ll cautiously agree. But if you think that everyone is going to agree on the same universal truth merely because of its convincing presentation, I’d say you’re kidding yourself.
So, again, we’re back to square one: if you like the Russians and you have whichever reason for it, then fine. I think they’re great, too. And as long as you have an unconditional respect for them that doesn’t depend on their cultural way of life being compatible with yours (and America’s), then I’d say you’re consistent and in good form. Just beware that your pleasant-sounding racial kinship theory just might have to collide with any unpleasant world of facts so many years down the line.