“We Muslims should help America in its jihad against the USSR. Muslims have experienced Soviet aggression more than anybody else. And now in alliance with Washington we have a chance to pay them back for all of the suffering that the Soviets have inflicted on the Islamic world. We call upon Muslims and American Christians to join in a united Islamic-Christian jihad against the Satanic Soviet Union.”
Yep, that’s what it was like. But that was then; this is now.
I composed the above quote by switching around selected proper nouns and adjectives in a sentence from the story below. According to UCSJ:
Russian Muslim Leader Declares Anti-US Jihad- - - - - - - - -
Talgat Tadzhuddin, one of Russia’s two competing chief muftis, has once again declared jihad against the US, this time because of its support for Georgia, according to a September 8, 2008 report by the online news web site Gazeta.ru. “The USA are fiends of hell who impose spiritual assimilation on anybody who strikes back against their filthy hands,” the mufti is quoted as saying, further characterizing the West as “enemies of the human race.” An August 29, 2008 BBC Russian service report carries an additional quote: “We [Muslims] should help Russia in its jihad against the USA. Muslims have experienced their aggression more than anybody else. And now in alliance with Moscow we have a chance to pay them back for all of the suffering that the Americans have inflicted on the Islamic world. We call upon Muslims and Russian Orthodox to join in a united Islamic-Orthodox jihad against the Empire of Satan.”
Muslim and Orthodox commentators have reacted by criticizing the mufti’s statement. In 2003, Mufti Tadzhuddin called for a jihad against the US in reaction to the war in Iraq, but he then kept silent on the topic, reportedly at the insistence of the government.
It seems that what goes around, comes around. What a difference twenty years can make!
Can there be any clearer indication of how badly we have botched our Caucasus policy?
Forget for a moment the argument over whether Georgia is a democracy or not. Come down from the moral high ground long enough to assess our long-term aims in resisting the Great Jihad.
It doesn’t matter whether or not George Soros bankrolled the regime in Tbilisi. And I don’t have to believe that Putin is the Savior of the West to come to the conclusion that our actions in the Caucasus have done serious damage to our strategic interests.
By poking around on Russia’s borders we have helped cement a de facto alliance between Moscow and the Great Jihad. Things didn’t have to be this way — it’s not in the Russians’ long-term interests to make friends with the mujahideen in their midst. And the Kremlin may come to regret doing business with the mullahs and the imams, just as we have.
But now that we’ve played our blundering hand in Russia’s near abroad, it’s in Moscow’s short-term interests to aid and abet as much Islamic mayhem as possible directed against America and its allies.
Great job, Foggy Bottom! What a superb strategic coup!
Hat tip: Holger Danske.
40 comments:
Baron,
While I agree with you in the the self-criticism you express as an American, I disagree with how you otherwise describe the situation.
"We [Muslims] should help Russia in its jihad against the USA."
These are the words of a megalomaniac religious fanatic. You should not draw any other implications from that.
There is no Russian "jihad" against the USA. It's not comparable to the '80s and the war in Afghanistan, etc.
By poking around on Russia’s borders we have helped cement a de facto alliance between Moscow and the Great Jihad.
Que? You are fantasizing. The fact that America makes enemies in many directions does not mean that these are allied with each other.
it’s in Moscow’s short-term interests to aid and abet as much Islamic mayhem as possible directed against America and its allies.
It's in Russia's short-term interest to keep the American army busy in the Middle East, but definitely not to create mayhem!
To illustrate my point, compare this to Israel's position regarding Georgia:
George Friedman: "Israeli Strategy After the Russo-Georgian War"
Israel withdrew their active support from Georgia once it was clear what was coming (they ended weapons sales to Georgia the week before the Georgians attacked South Ossetia).
Israel want Russia out of its zone of interest. As long as the support for Georgia seemed to mean stability and Georgia could be seen as a "wall" to Russia, Israel was in on it. But then Georgia was transformed into a pointed stick, being poked at the bear. And Israel wanted nothing more to do with it.
Israel want Russia out of its zone of interest. It's the very same for Russia vis-a-vis USA. Russia and Israel want stability. It's the Jihadists and America (as it is lead in these time) that are pushing for chaos. In this context, Israel will support America, but only up to a certain point. Likewise we might see Russian support to the Muslim world, but only up to a certain point. And interestingly enough, since the South Ossetian War we have not seen any examples of that.
To get a better idea of Russia's way of reasoning in this, have a look at this video clip, where Putin explains it at length at the Valdai Discussion Club:
Russia has no imperial ambitions - Putin
(transcript)
For those of you who like "youtubing", I recommend going there typing in "Saakashvili". It's so rich, so much. This guy has got a very "rich" personality.
Some examples:
Saakashvili eats his tie (at 1:01)
Saakashvili loses presence of mind
Saakashvili: I Talk to McCain Several Times a Day
More tie in the sky
But there is much much more. Browse yourselves over at Youtube.
Medvedev about Sakaashvili:
“The Georgian head of state is not just a man we won’t do business with. He’s an unpredictable pathological and mentally unstable drug abuser. Western journalists, that interviewed him not so long ago, know it! A two-hour-long interview on the high – that’s over the edge for a head of state. If NATO needs such a leader - go ahead.”
This explains all the very strange behaviour that you can see in the video clips I posted above.
Secretary Rice claims that she strongly advised against any invasion. And I believe her. I think this war was probably "masterminded" in one of the many phone conversations Sakaashvili had with McCain, while sniffing cocaine.
The psychological meaning of tie chewing: the impulse to bite and suck is an behaviour normally exhibited in babies. Biting is also an expression of anger. I can surmise from Saakashvilis behaviour that he lacks emotional contact and greatly desires it. He is a nervous unstable person who has a childish excitableness. He is a coward who panics easily. Drug use is entirely in accordance with his personality, for drugs give him a short cut to pleasure because he is unable to form fulfilling relationships with others. Saakashvili is very much the kind of man who abuses stimulants, he wont enjoy downers, with the exception of heroin because that provides the primordial satisfaction he craves and was probably denied as a small boy.
High risk of psychotic disorder, if he doesn't already have one.
In short: That he is Georgia's first 'democratic' revolutionary leader, a man of the people, accords with his character. He is also superficial, impulsive and unstable, and in the long run will be very bad for Georgia.
CS --
Note that I said “de facto” alliance, for that’s what it is. For a brief time the interests of the jihad and Russia run side-by-side. If the antics of Talgat Tadzhuddin cease serving Russia’s interests, then the Kremlin will squash him like a bug.
I don’t share your affection for the Russian regime. But I don’t demonize it, either, and I don’t romanticize the brave little republics of the Caucasus (or Ukraine) like do many Americans do. To believe that any country that was a Soviet Republic for 74 years can be anything other than a thug state today is insane. And those who think that Georgia and Ukraine are bastions of liberty and democracy are deluding themselves.
The American government is making serious — potentially catastrophic — mistakes with its Russia policy right now. But the Russians are making serious mistakes, too, at least in my uninformed opinion. Russia has its own Islamic problem, much more serious than Western Europe.
In fifteen years or so the Russian army will be majority Muslim. What then? How will the restive border areas in Central Asia and the Caucasus be controlled without ceding power to Islamic groups there? Who will crush whatever the new Grozny is in a reprise of the Chechen war?
The increase of the Rus birthrate from 1.25 to 1.40 will be of no help, since Russian Muslims are breeding at 4.0 or 5.0. Even if Putin manages to encourage randy young Russians to breed like rabbits starting tomorrow, the new Russians won’t enlist and pick up their Kalashnikovs before about 2030, and that will be too late.
No, Russia’s problems are much, much worse than ours. I wish it weren’t true, but it’s important to see things as they are, and not as we wish them to be. Russia may survive and prosper. It may overcome this mess somehow, but it will be difficult for it to do it alone.
Which brings me back to my original point. An alliance between the USA and Russia is in both countries’ long-term strategic interests, and the idiots in our government who think they’re foreign policy geniuses have thrown away an opportunity that won’t come again soon, if ever.
Nothing new here:
When the Russians and their henchmen shot to death thousands on the minefields deployed along the Iron Curtain like the Berlin Wall, Western Europeans cheered the barbarians and scorned Reagan and the US. Let's burn the American flag!
Remember the the mass protest against the Pershing rockets? There was not protest against the Russian invasion of Czech-Slovakia and Hungary.
The new hero, Putin was already active bastard then.
Russians the new Messiah! Saviors of Europe! - Ha, ha, ha!
"Old Europe" as Rumsfeld once said is rotten to the core, they deserve their ignominious end either by their Muslims or by the Bear controlling the gas valve.
This from a ex-resident of a so called "thug state".
Bela --
Cool your jets, hoss. I'm not referring to Hungary when I speak of "thug states". I am only referring to the countries which were SSRs in the USSR for all 74 years of pure living hell.
This excludes the Baltics, and -- obviously -- the Warsaw Pact countries. These managed to preserve more of the remnants of civil society than did any parts of the USSR. That's why they are at least functional today.
Baron, what do you mean by a "thug" state? If you mean a country with a very low level of civic consciousness and high degree of corruption then I certainly agree with you. But if you mean belligerence, I disagree. I just don't see it.
baron bodissey
I know what you meant.
I addressed my post to the rabid Russophile, Anti-American crowd that Rumsfeld correctly defined and he was an intelligent man; he understood the "Old Europe" and wanted to remove the US military from Germany and transfer it to Poland.
The current Russian question has very little to do with Georgia per se: it's represents the deepening ideological schism between the EU and the US which started with De Gaulle continued with Chirac and Schroeder, and took a worsening path ever since.
It serves no benefit to deny the reality... don't mince one's words about it.
The European infatuation with Russia is lacking any realistic foundation for there is nothing Russia can show as positive endeavor to be imitated by the world.
If I am wrong please present the proof of it.
Felicie --
That's a very good definition, and it will do just fine.
A thug state may be corrupt and despotic without ever bothering its neighbors, directing all its oppressiveness inwards on its own citizens. Or it can turn outwards and direct aggressive energies abroad.
Thuggish governance does not specify a particular foreign policy.
Bela --
I'm obviously not trying to defend Russia's record of brutality and aggression. But a prudent foreign policy sometimes requires doing business with ugly regimes. It's not for the fastidious or the faint-hearted.
People who conduct affairs of state have as their primary responsibility to serve the best interests of their nation, their own people. What would be unthinkable at the level of personal ethics -- to cut deals with murderous thugs, for example -- can be a moral necessity for a foreign minister or a president.
Self-righteousness can pretend otherwise, but such actions are often necessary. A failure to recognize and act according to the interests of one's people can result in the death of hundreds of thousands of citizens, or the defeat of the nation in war. That's why Churchill had to ally with Stalin.
If my hands are unsullied by contact with the Russian beast, and as a result, mounds of corpses fill the streets of my country's cities, have I behaved morally?
Statecraft is an exacting master, and it is not for those who would flinch from necessity. Personally, I could never do it -- but I try at least to observe it clearly.
Baron,
I'm obviously not trying to defend Russia's record of brutality and aggression.
Russia's brutality and aggression??? There has been no such thing. What the heck are you talking about? Give me even one example. Are you talking about Stalin? I'd make the distinction between Russia and the Soviet Union if I were you.
Note that I said “de facto” alliance, for that’s what it is.
I do not see even a "de facto" alliance. Surely there have been trade deals between for example Russia and Iran. But how exactly is that different from the deals America makes with Saudi Arabia? Is it your view that America is in a "de facto" alliance with Jihad?
And Donald Rumsfeld was the one pushing for the nuke deal to North Korea in the board of ASEA, so apart from being in "alliance" with Islam (like so many others) it stands out as the main nuclear proliferator to Communist thugs. What is that if not a thug state in itself?
Russia has its own Islamic problem, much more serious than Western Europe.
Yes and no. Russia has a high percentage of Muslims, especially in many separate republics. But the attitude of the Chechnyans is the exception. There's nothing making such wonders as a state acting with self-confidence. Look e.g. at Bulgaria with some 10% Muslims since long way back. These Muslims are not radicalized, and assimilation is the norm. The same is found in Russia, where even Muslims convert to Christianity. And as long as Saudi money for building mosques is kept out, as well as mullahs from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are kept out, there is a chance it can remain that way. While the Western whorish ways radicalize even Christian third-worlders to become criminal thugs.
Russian Muslims are breeding at 4.0 or 5.0
Where did you get that figure from? I guess you are just making it up. Take in account how in many Muslim states the fertility rate is below 2.0. What makes you "guess" that it's so high in Russia? Instead the situation suggests that it's at least half of what you suggest.
An alliance between the USA and Russia is in both countries’ long-term strategic interests
Russia is all prepared for this, while America is plunging at an accelerating speed into an aggressive crusade for Utopia (McCain/Obama is taking America very far from the possibility of such a deal).
Conservative Swede --
Russian brutality and aggression has been recorded on occasion since 1991. Brutality in Chechnya (and I’m not arguing whether it was justified or not, just that it was brutal), and aggressive behavior towards Estonia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, inter alia. Yes, Georgia: many of the “South Ossetians” with Russian passports are ethnic Russians who did not live there before 1991. I consider that a form of aggression, albeit in slow motion.
I don’t have to go whole hog and become a Putin-lover to oppose American policy towards Russia. And I don’t have to be a Saakashvili-apologist to observe Russia’s aggressive actions towards Georgia. I don’t feel the need to jump all the way over to one side or the other. I’m trying to see things as they are.
But how exactly is that different from the deals America makes with Saudi Arabia?
The difference is that the deals America makes are (we hope) in America’s interests. I’m an American nationalist, remember? I’m not a Russian nationalist or a Swedish nationalist.
Unfortunately, a lot of the deals we make are not in our interests, because they’re made by those idiots in Foggy Bottom or the NSC.
These Muslims are not radicalized, and assimilation is the norm.
I am truly astonished at this ostrich-like behavior from you, who were at one time the least ostrich-like of commenters in this forum.
You know as well as I (and all our regular readers) that there is no such thing as a reliably assimilated Muslim. Fjordman has documented extensively how easily Muslims can un-assimilate, even after generations. France and Britain are notable examples of this phenomenon in Europe — the radicalization of a new generation has been a surprise, even to the parents of those who were radicalized. And the Muslims of India were at one time considered to be “assimilated”, but no longer.
Watch for it to happen in Russia, too.
Take in account how in many Muslim states the fertility rate is below 2.0. What makes you "guess" that it's so high in Russia?
I’m not talking about Muslim states; I’m talking about Muslim-majority republics within the Russian Federation. I don’t remember where I read it, but I remember that I considered the source reliable at the time I read it.
I’m willing to consider contrary information, if you are willing to supply it.
Russia is all prepared for this, while America is plunging at an accelerating speed into an aggressive crusade for Utopia (McCain/Obama is taking America very far from the possibility of such a deal).
On that we are in agreement.
Baron,
Brutality in Chechnya (and I’m not arguing whether it was justified or not, just that it was brutal)
Nevertheless you describe a nation defending itself against aggressive Jihad as "brutal", "aggressive" and a "thug" state. Your choice of words makes it appear as if you have moral objections against real defence against Islam.
and aggressive behavior towards Estonia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, inter alia
Seriously. You have to make the distinction between being agressive and being defensive. Russia is being pushed against the wall.
Yes, Georgia: many of the “South Ossetians” with Russian passports are ethnic Russians who did not live there before 1991. I consider that a form of aggression, albeit in slow motion.
South Ossetia is pro-Russian, so why is it an aggression? Do you consider it an aggression if Americans move to Europe?
I’m an American nationalist, remember?
I applaud you for using the word "nationalist" instead of the BS term "patriot"! With more people like you, there would be hope for America.
I am truly astonished at this ostrich-like behavior from you
Ostrich? I'm just stating facts. If you back away from facts, you are the ostrich.
Fjordman has documented extensively how easily Muslims can un-assimilate, even after generations.
Well, so have I. You should know better than deluding yourself into thinking I'm not aware of this. What you miss in this, though, is the context. Muslims have to be actually triggered to un-assimilate. Muslims in Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, etc. have lived for more than a century without being triggered (Chechens being the exception). However in the Western context the Muslims are in all ways eagerly encouraged to un-assimilate -- and guess what happens? Your mistake is to assume that the Western context is global.
I’m talking about Muslim-majority republics within the Russian Federation. I don’t remember where I read it, but I remember that I considered the source reliable at the time I read it.
Sorry, that is not very convincing.
On that we are in agreement.
Well, mostly we agree, of course.
CS --
Brutality and aggression are in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. I’ll have to leave it at that.
Chechens being the exception
Yes, they are, aren’t they? And why is that? They are gangsters who poached on the turf of ethnic Russian gangsters, which brought down the wrath of Putin upon them. That’s what radicalized them.
And what makes you certain that other republics won’t be radicalized? In Khakassia, maybe (though the Muslims are a minority there), or Bashkortostan (more than 50% Muslim)? How do you know they won’t be radicalized? The Uighurs were relatively placid until recently, too, as were the Muslims of Indonesia. But circumstances change, and ethnic Russians don’t control those circumstances.
Sorry, that is not very convincing.
This is disingenuous. You yourself source less than 10% of the arguments you make; you simply assert things, just as I do. You are arguing in bad faith.
I might be remembering what I read incorrectly, but one thing is for certain: the Muslim areas are the only places in Russia where the population is increasing, and the larger the percentage of ethnic Russians in an oblast, the more drastic the depopulation.
I went looking through my old downloads trying to find my source, and I couldn’t. Maybe I read it in a printed book. However, I did find this NBR doc (pdf), which is a very sobering assessment of the demographic situation in Russia. A quote:
The Russian Federation today faces the unprecedented dual challenge of simultaneously reversing the plummeting birth rates and skyrocketing mortality rates of the 1990s. What makes Russia’s demographic prognosis all the more dire is the sharp and proximate contrast to its Asian neighbors, which face the reverberations of a “health” explosion. As a result of astounding improvements in population health and longevity, Russia’s neighbors in the Asia-Pacific are traveling a very different demographic path.
Even China and India—which have long dealt with the challenges of large total populations and, like Russia, continue to face the challenges posed by emerging infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis—have seen a sharp improvement in the overall health and longevity of their populations.
The policy imperative here begins not only with the recognition that Russia’s slide into a demographic abyss threatens its own social, political, economic, and epidemiological security, but also that of its neighbors. In a world where emerging infections can disembark from any plane without a visa or security check, Russia’s failure to produce an innovative and effective policy response to its “health” crisis also constitutes a health threat of global proportions. In today’s world, the former statistical abstraction of “national health” now looms as a concrete global threat measured in the most mundane of statistics—births, deaths, and causes of death.
Perhaps you will tell me that the statistics in this document are made up, or lies, or are mistaken. I could dig around and find a dozen other sources that say the same kind of thing, but I’m not going to bother, because you’ll just dismiss them or shoot them down. You have decided what’s true, and mere facts won’t change that.
But I don’t share your optimism. Russia is not a strong horse, and I’m not going to choose it.
Baron,
I find the attitude of your answer very strange. It's certainly not inviting to debate. So there seems to be little point in going any more into details.
Let me just say that yes Russia has many problems, some of which are indeed very serious. My overall point is just that unlike all other countries of white people, the leadership is actually seriously trying to deal with the problems. Where everywhere else, except for Denmark and Italy, the elites are working eagerly to make the problems much much worse.
So sure, Russia might go under (as you seem to want to imply), but they would then do so while being united in their struggle. Let's call the the worst-case scenario. But it's still so much better than the way things are in the West, where the leadership is waging war against it's population. Where anyone standing up for the nation's true interests gets viciously attacked (also in Italy and Denmark).
Dying while struggling together under unity for a good cause is not the worst thing that can happen to people. The worst thing is the death of the soul that has struck the people of the West. There's no dignity in the West. Russia at least has a fundamental dignity and honour. And with that in place, no matter the magnitude of the problems, you are in a good place.
There are indeed many problems, many challenges. But at the same time, you are speaking from an identity position, and are exaggerating the situation, and misinterpreting things.
Baron,
You know as well as I (and all our regular readers) that there is no such thing as a reliably assimilated Muslim.
I'm sorry, but I have to counter you here too.
A Muslim who has converted to Christianity is indeed the most reliably assimilated person you will ever find. In the Orthodox world, e.g in Bulgaria, Romania and Russia, there are Muslims converting to Christianity. I do not know to what degree, but the mere fact that the phenomenon exists tells us that the context they live in is indeed vastly different from ours. These people are not like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or the man in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity. Their reasons are things such as the Romanian Muslim who married a Christian woman, or the Russian Muslim who converted "because all her friends are Christians". And these people do not live with body guards.
This does not indicate that there is no problem, but it's truly a vastly different world than ours. Unfortunately for Romania and Bulgaria they have befallen into the sphere of Soros Democracy and it's poisonous serfdom, so things are rapidly degenerating there. The Muslims there are not yet radicalized. On the contrary Muslim organizations are protesting aggressive liberals (i.e. Soros' people) who want to remove Christian crosses from schools, etc. The century, and more, of good way of dealing with the Muslims is still in effect. But of course we know how Romania and Bulgaria are becoming rapidly Westernized, with all its self-loathing and societal disorder. Once they are properly Westernized there will be loads of Saudi money flowing in to build mosques and sending imams. And of course, with this approach the Muslims are guaranteed to become radicalized.
And this gives another reason I find Russia something of a relief. It's the only free state (together with Belarus) that has not been conquered by the totalitarian sphere of Soros "democracy". I'm very much in favour of independent states and very much against serfdom and civilizational suicide.
Baron:
BELARUS, Lukasenko! HA HA:
Take a look at this footage on Belarus Democracy! You seldom see things like this:
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=gxMWZZr3PQU&feature=related
Make sure the link is one line.
Baron,
One more:
"Belarusian youth is against Russian occupation"
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ7hbKvujEk&feature=related
Authentic footage shall discredit some posters irrational fantasies....
Conservative Swede: "My overall point is just that unlike all other countries of white people, the leadership is actually seriously trying to deal with the problems."
That has been my general impression too. Although, who knows - I've been deceived by my impressions many times before. For example, I was completely taken in by the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction story.
Thank you for the link with Putin's interview. There was something about the way he spoke that affected me. There was, for the lack of a better word, some "earnestness" in his manner of speech and the words he chose. Unlike Western politician who speak like automatons and you can tell that they don't believe in a word they say. I don't include, of course, the leaders of new nationalistic challenger parties. They also have this quality of earnestness that makes one think they are for real, they want to effect some change and are not simply some bureaucrats who want take advantage of the material benefits that their cushy political office can afford them.
Bela,
Regarding your two videos from Belarus.
The first one: Such pictures can be cut together from any Western country, including Sweden. No difference at all! The only difference is that when people are beaten up and shot in the streets in the West, it does not result in an orderly society. Instead things are getting worse by the day.
Regarding the second video: We see Muslims all over the world burning the American flag and burning effigies of Bush. In your video clip we see some "activists" behaving like Muslims, in burning the Russian flag and pictures of Lukashenko. What's your point here? That you applaud their behavior?
Anyway, my point was just in how Belarus is one of the few countries that has not fallen under the aggressively expansive Soros Democracy "empire". So regardless of how things are there otherwise, of which I know fairly little, this is a big plus. But of course anything opposing the Soros dominance get the masses of aggressive leftist activists after them (including Antifa and the likes). The videos you provided are exactly the kind that such people produce. And indeed we have seen hundreds of them, in the very same style, about George W. Bush etc.
Considering how powerful the Soros Democracy "empire" is, how it successfully have conquered all other Eastern European countries, how aggressive their activists are at so many levels, what dirty games they play in propaganda, etc., I'm not surprised if Belarus is playing it tough against them. How would they otherwise have been able to keep them out?
But Westerners just do not get it do they? The Shah of Iran was much worse then Lukashenko according to Western standards, so he just had to go, didn't he? You are all little Jimmy Carters one the inside aren't you? Then when the Mullocracy is in place the Westerners are lamenting the result. But they just cannot make themselves support the Shah and similar leaders in the first place. They can see the result of their attitudes leading to a Mullocracy a thousand times, but they will still never correct their attitudes.
Then they call for a Pinochet to come, to sort out the mess created by their own faulty attitudes. But I do not want a Pinochet at all. I want the guy before Pinochet that makes Pinochet unnecessary. And as far as I can see, Lukashenko is such a guy.
Felicie,
Thank you for the link with Putin's interview. There was something about the way he spoke that affected me. There was, for the lack of a better word, some "earnestness" in his manner of speech and the words he chose.
Yes, this is exactly what caught my attention too. A parallel to this is when I saw The Great Global Warming Swindle (the reply to Al Gore's movie). What struck when I saw it was "Oh yeah, that is what a real scientist sounds like when he speaks!" I had almost forgotten what it sounds like. Since 1989 they completely disappeared from our media. Since then we have only activists dressing as scientists, activists dressing as lawyers, activists dressing as experts of all kinds. But when you hear a real scientist talking, you know instantly that this is the real thing, the real scientific attitude. I remember it from the days when I was young.
It was such a relief to hear them, to encounter real earnestness. The experience of listening to Putin in that video clip is something of the same kind. I hope many people take the time to watch this clip.
Yet another parallel of this kind was when I was recently in Poland I got another deja vu. It was like walking the streets of Sweden back in the '70s when I was young. A normal orderly traditional society without the cultural enrichment of multiculturalism. Once again the feeling of relief.
PS. Felicie, your comments in this forum impress me and always have. I would not mind at all to be in email contact. If that sounds at all interesting my email is conswede(at)mailbolt.com
Conservative Swede --
Russia at least has a fundamental dignity and honour.
This point is at best debatable. I’ve never been to Russia, I don’t speak Russian, and I have only a few Russian contacts, so I can’t address it directly one way or another.
However, I can look at the statistics, for which there are multiple sources. Russia is dropping rapidly into a demographic abyss, as the NBR article says. It’s hard to identify the exact fertility rate of ethnic Russians, but it is extraordinarily low, such that (combined with their low life expectancy) their population will tend to halve every generation. More than half of ethnic Russian pregnancies end in abortion, possibly as much as seventy percent. Seventy percent! What kind of dignity and honor accrue to a people that kill that many of their potential citizens?
And the rate of alcoholism is catastrophic, especially for men. Once again, if dignity and honor reign in Russia, why the mass tendency to find solace in the bottle?
If this is dignity and honor, I’ll take indignity and dishonor, thank you.
you are… exaggerating the situation, and misinterpreting things.
Kettle, you are black.
A Muslim who has converted to Christianity is indeed the most reliably assimilated person you will ever find.
I can’t agree with you more. Converting Muslims to Christianity is one of our best strategies, and is occurring in mass numbers in Africa, in areas where it is not yet a death sentence to convert out of Islam.
But that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about “quiescent” Muslims, such as those in Bosnia or Chechnya a generation or two ago, who lived among infidels with apparent assimilation and never raised a jihad. The situation there has changed. The situation in other places can change, too. Even Naser Khader’s children (assuming he has any) may someday become radicalized.
But I do not want a Pinochet at all. I want the guy before Pinochet that makes Pinochet unnecessary.
In this I am in total agreement with you. This is exactly what I want also.
There is a very cogent and comprehensive article at The Brussels Journals by George Handlery in which he is unmasking the Russian beast to her bare bone, titled:
"Duly Noted: More Masking Tape"
Quote:6. Not only is Imperial Russia’s Soviet mutation back. So is Stalin as a positive figure in school texts, the Soviet anthem he had imposed is intoned and his picture is over the desk of Ambassador-to-NATO Rogozin. The millions of his victims are a multiple of Hitler’s.....
This is the NEW Russia of Putin!
__________________________________________________
C.S.
So you deny the authenticity of the footage? All are costumes and staged fakes made in the West?
You don't believe in you eyes if they contradict to your bizarre ideology. Good for you.
The hatred of Russia is wide spread even among pan-Slavic countries like Belarus: what Soros got to do with young people burning the dictator Lukashenko image?
Isn't it a storyteller when Ukraine peasants greeted the Nazis as liberator because Russians treated them like pigs?
Russia is the Saint patron of all bottom feeders like Castro, Chavez, the Mullah, assorted scumbags, past present, and future.
Bela,
So you deny the authenticity of the footage? All are costumes and staged fakes made in the West?
You are not even trying to be serious, are you? To say that I claimed it's "costumes" and "staged fakes" just makes you look ridiculous.
The point is (repeating it for anyone that was too dull to get it the first time) that one can take real footage from any Western country and edit it together to something that looks exactly the same. In fact it can be made to look much worse, with worse police brutality and activists being shot in the streets.
C.S.
"that one can take real footage from any Western country and edit it together to something that looks exactly the same"
And? What's you point? Will it make pretty this Stalinist thug Lukashenko? Don't forget, in your post you have said Russia and Belarus are the two "FREE" country left.
(It's the only free state (together with Belarus)
You have a strange attraction to these rotten countries.
Here is from a Belorussian web on your hero, Lukashenko:
The European Union should impose tough sanctions against President Lukashenko and his top officials and politicians said Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, President of the Party of European Socialists.
The PES expresses its solidarity with the peaceful demonstrators camped in central Minsk protesting about the elections and demands respect for their freedom of speech and their personal security."
________________________________________
TO MASS MEDIA
Submitted by newseditor on Wed, 27/09/2006 - 13:25. politics | elections 2006
We, officers of the Committee of State Security (KGB) of the Republic of Belarus want to make a matter of public knowledge the fact that the administration of the Minsk detention center is using unlawful methods of physical influence on the former presidential candidate Alexander Kozulin, recently sentenced to five and a half years in prison.
DECLARATION OF THE BELARUSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY (HRAMADA).
http://bsdp.org/?q=en
Bela,
Your way of referring to Lukashenko as my "hero" is nothing but childish. I'm not referring to George Soros as "your hero", and neither McCain, Obama or Bush. While you look at the world through their perspective, I have simply decided to look at it the other way around, countering the massive media wall of the lying deceptive Western media. (I get these same thing in milder versions, about "admiration". "affection" etc., neither of which is serious). And your LGF style approach is crowned with labeling Lukashenko as a "Stalinist".
Regarding Alexander Kozulin, you are obviously not following the news. He has been released. The date of his release is very interesting, August 16. This suggests that there is pressure from Russia behind it. The events earlier in August changed the world order. In this context it's in Russia's interest to stay within moral conduct in every step they take. Belarus' imprisonment of Alexander Kozulin was at odds with this. But it's now reversed.
Lukashenko has not been a smooth operator. But we have to realize the context in which he has been acting. He has managed to keep the Soros Octopus out of his country. We know that this is as much of a warlike situation as when Jihadists infiltrate the West; imagine the man before Pinochet who made Pinochet unnecessary. Churchill made mistakes too.
Lukashenko might very well end up being a liability to Russia. And the important thing here is not really Lukashenko, but the interest of the Belorussian people. Lukashenko has an approval rating of around 60%, higher than any Western leader I know of. This for being "good enough". For protecting the interests of the Belorussian people, keeping the Soros Octupus out. I expect within ten years that Belarus will have merged with Russia, based on popular will.
Furthermore, regarding your links. You should not swallow every propaganda piece you hear uncritically. Take for example the alleged poisoning of Yushchenko, with all the innuendo of how the Russians were behind it. What happened really? A former ally and ex-minster claims that it was not true.
This is a propaganda war, the Soros Octopus against the Free States. I was looking into the complaints OSCE had against Russia and Belarus regarding their elections. And clearly we are worse off in Sweden when it comes to lack of fairness of elections. But this reporting is all propaganda. E.g. Freedom House ranks Sweden at the top for Political and Civil Rights, while e.g. Russia and Singapore are put very low. The EU is obviously much more unfree than Singapore and Russia, with thought crimes, leftist stormtroopers, political prisoners and the whole kit.
The approval rating of Putin is over 80%. It is the leaders that act in the interest of their people, who's got genuine approval of their people, that are described as the "dictators" in Western media. While the Western leaders who are waging war against their own people, are depicted as "democratic". Virtually everything that you read in Western media is the reverse of how things really are, e.g. about immigration, etc. We do not only have the phenomenon of "inversion of values" but "inversion of truth".
PS. Notice how both your sources are socialist.
By mistake I supplied the wrong link above under "moral conduct". I meant to give the link to Le Figaro's recent interview with Putin:
Putin: U.S. spoiled our relationship and should fix it
Baron,
Russia is dropping rapidly into a demographic abyss
Yes, in the '90s. Quite as all of Eastern Europe Russia dropped like this in the '90s. But the dropping has halted, and e.g. the fertility rate is increasing.
It’s hard to identify the exact fertility rate of ethnic Russians, but it is extraordinarily low, such that (combined with their low life expectancy) their population will tend to halve every generation.
This is a good example of how you address the issue with some sort of emotional panic. What you suggest here is simply not possible, even if the fertility rate is 0.0. I defies the rules of logic.
You bring up some more issues and in alarmist mode making them the whole truth about Russia, based on which you declare Russia a veritable hellhole without any dignity and honour.
Well, surely there are problems. And without the good leadership there might not have been reason to speak of Russia as a country of dignity and honour. That's all it takes, good leadership. If we had had that we could have been dignified too.
Russia has kept the Soros Octopus out of their country, and their leadership have them on the right path. It's a long and hard way to go, but unlike the Western countries they are moving in the right direction.
I was talking about “quiescent” Muslims, such as those in Bosnia or Chechnya a generation or two ago
The Muslims in Chechnya were never historically acquiesced, so what we have seen going on there does not represent a change.
Bosnian Muslims became radicalized since the ended up under the Western sphere of influence. There's nothing radicalizing Muslims like the West.
The climate in Russia is the very opposite. Any Muslim can be radicalized, true. But it has to be triggered to happen. In the West we have created the conditions that are pushing the Muslims in this direction, like nothing else. But Russia is a different world, disconnected from the mental viruses spread in the West, and the pushing goes in the reverse direction. As I pointed out, Muslims convert to Christianity, and it's not even considered such a big thing. What you have to absorb from this is not only the conversions as such, but what their existence tell you about the overall climate. Think about it for a moment.
Muslims can be acquiesced and has been so since the 19th century (or longer) in several Orthodox countries. A good firm rule aiming for the common good of the country is all it takes (what we used to have everywhere before the 20th century). The Western mental virus of post-WWII, on the contrary, radicalize Muslims like nothing else. But this is not a norm or a natural state of things (which you seem to assume). It's a virus that needs to be contained and reversed.
CS --
But the dropping has halted, and e.g. the fertility rate is increasing.
The fertility rate, as I understand it, has risen from 1.1 or 1.25 children per mother to 1.40. That does not begin to inaugurate a population increase, it simply slows the decrease slightly. If you look at the graphs in the document I linked, you’ll notice that the population of Muslims in Ingushetia and Chechnya — the problem areas — is increasing significantly, but in the ethnic Russian areas the population is decreasing drastically.
This is a good example of how you address the issue with some sort of emotional panic. What you suggest here is simply not possible, even if the fertility rate is 0.0. I defies the rules of logic.
I beg to differ with you. It is no such thing, and defies no rules of logic.
Do the math, Swede, do the math! Over the long term, if the average Russian woman has just a little more than one child, the next generation will see just slightly more than half the number of potentially procreative parents. Each generation sees its reproductive potential cut by half.
Let’s try to get a rough estimate of what the rest of this century might bring.
The Russian population actually started to decrease a few years ago. The last population figure I remember hearing was 140 million. It may be less now, but we’ll assume that’s where it is. And we’ll assume that 54 million of those constitute the “breeding stock” — that is, those who are neither too young nor too old to procreate. And, just for the sake of argument, we’ll set the length of an average generation at 25 years.
Now: we’ll assume that the standard fertility rate necessary for a stable population — neither growing nor shrinking — is 2.1 offspring per mother, the commonly used figure. We’ll also assume the more optimistic estimate for the fertility rate of ethnic Russian women, 1.4. That means that the breeding stock will decline at a rate of 1.4/2.1, or .6667, every generation.
Using these assumptions — all of them educated guesses, but useful for the sake of illustration — we get the following progression
Year Breeding Stock
2008 54,000,000
2033 36,000,000
2058 24,000,000
2083 16,000,000
2108 10,666,667
Remember, this is just the population of people in their procreative period. The actual population at any given time depends on life expectancy — how well the country cares for its aged, how good medical care is, the general level of prosperity, the prevalence of infectious diseases, war, famine, etc. But if the ratio I posited were to stay the same, in 2058 we would expect the population to be 150M / 54M X 24M, or about 67 million people. In other words, less than half of what it is now.
Because life expectancy in Russia has declined so drastically — for men it’s now around 52 or 54 years, I think — the above figures may be optimistic.
The situation is unprecedented. No nation in modern history has undergone this kind of population implosion, so it’s hard to say what the condition of the country will be like in 50 years. The only comparisons we have are with the great plagues of the Middle Ages, but those depopulated a subsistence economy, and not a modern industrial society. So who knows what Russia will be like in 2058?
As I mentioned before, even if the “Conception Day” programs have their intended effect, and Russian women manage to get their fertility rate up to 2.1 over the next decade, the positive effect on the country — the point when the new babies can contribute to society — won’t arrive for 25 or 30 years. By then whatever crisis is coming will already be well underway.
You may see this as “emotional panic”, but I am simply trying to take the best figures I have and make reasonable demographic extrapolations.
Even if I’m right, there may be a way that Russia can survive and prosper under these conditions of drastic population reduction. As I say, there is no precedent to compare this with. No one knows what will happen to an entire nation in these circumstances.
But, numerically speaking, something very similar to what I describe here has to happen. It’s like the end of the welfare state: there is no way around it. The simple mathematics of the situation cannot be wished away.
BTW — Japan, Italy, Spain, and a few other countries (including some in Eastern Europe, I believe) are in very similar circumstances. So Russia’s not the only one facing this prospect.
Baron,
You seem to make your calculations in the way that every cohort dies every generation, and then gets recreated in proportion to the breeding stock. You will need to stipulate real cohorts and let the follow through, to get realistic figures. The way you are doing it now you are letting a lot of people die at the age of 25.
But even if your calculations are unrealistically pessimistic, there's no halving in every generation. The halving comes after two generations.
And then there's something to be said about extrapolating historically low figures indefinitely into the future...
BTW — Japan, Italy, Spain, and a few other countries (including some in Eastern Europe, I believe) are in very similar circumstances. So Russia’s not the only one facing this prospect.
So logically speaking Italy is also this undignified and dishonorable hellhole to you. Completely doomed no matter what Berlusconi does, yada, yada, yada.
No my friend. What you have been expressing here is emotional allergy towards Russia.
And using the document you provided we have countered this claim of yours:
The increase of the Rus birthrate from 1.25 to 1.40 will be of no help, since Russian Muslims are breeding at 4.0 or 5.0.
This was not only wrong, but way off wrong. My assumption was correct. In fact the Muslim birthrate was even lower than I assumed.
Look at figure 8.
"Fertility exceeds the 2.0 mark in just two of these regions—-Dagestan and Ingushetia, both non-Russian minority republics—-and even there only by a slight amount."
So this is why I wrote "Sorry, that is not very convincing". The unspecified but reliable source could very well have been Mark Steyn or Bruce Bawer, or anyone like that, who are completely reckless with figures, exaggerate several magnitudes, and even simply make up figures in congruence with their emotional panic.
Not to mention how they treat extrapolations, from figures of an exceptionally low decade, indefinitely into the future, as as true as if it had already happened.
The unspecified but reliable source could very well have been Mark Steyn or Bruce Bawer
And this in combination with how the figures were way off from what one could reasonably expect, called for this skepticism--which turned out to be correct.
This forum would be even more interesting if the readers of the Komsomolskaya Pravda and the Izvestiya could be heard too.
I suggest to replace the David Star with the Red Star and Hammer and Sickle to comply with the poster's wishes.
Also let's sing The Soviet National Anthem / Гимн СССР
"Soiuz nerushimyj respublik svobodnykh
Splotila naveki Velikaia Rus."
More at:http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/sounds/lyrics/anthem.htm
Is this blog is about to turn into a Moscovite, Putinista Propaganda outlet?
CS --
There are so many straw men here that I don’t have enough time to knock them all down. I’ll hit a few.
You will need to stipulate real cohorts and let the follow through, to get realistic figures. The way you are doing it now you are letting a lot of people die at the age of 25.
I explicitly and specifically referred to the decline of breeding stock. That was the way I premised my calculations. A generation of breeding stock does “die” every 25 years and is replaced by its successor. That’s the nature of population dynamics. If a generation of breeding stock averages 1.4 children per mother, then the next generation will be only two-thirds as large.
That’s very simple mathematics. This is the most basic kind of statistics. There’s no magic in it. There’s no subjective judgment.
IF this generation has 1.4 children per mother, THEN the next generation will be only two-thirds as big as this one. That’s it, stated as plainly as I can.
But even if your calculations are unrealistically pessimistic, there's no halving in every generation. The halving comes after two generations.
That’s because I used the more optimistic ratio of 1.4. I was doing a best-case scenario.
The pessimistic ratio is 1.1. If I used that instead, then each successive generation would be 1.1/2.1, or 0.5238 the size of the previous one. Assuming that a generation is 25 years, then it would take (log .5 / log 0.5238 ) x 25 or approximately 26.8 years for the population to halve. That comes very close to halving within a generation, but only if the fertility rate is 1.1, the worst-case scenario.
The current best-case scenario would cause halving in fifty years. The rate can improve further, and then the decline will be slowed. But the next generation has to be much smaller than the current one, about two-thirds the size. Unless, of course, large-scale cloning is instituted right now.
So logically speaking Italy is also this undignified and dishonorable hellhole to you.
Tsk-tsk — putting words in my mouth yet again. I don’t think Russia, or Italy, or any other European country is a “hellhole”.
I think that a number of countries will experience a drastic native population decrease over the next generation. Some, like Italy, will make up the difference by immigration. I assume Russia won’t do that.
Italy, Spain, and other Western European countries will not experience as drastic a depopulation as Russia for three reasons:
1. Their fertility rates are slightly higher — just slightly — than Russia’s.
2. Their life expectancy is considerably higher; i.e. they are dying off at a much lower rate.
3. They are pulling in large numbers of Muslim immigrants.
This does not address quality-of-life issues. Russia may well be a better place to live in 20 years, with a lower population density, but also with a lower percentage of destructive Third-World immigrant groups.
This was not only wrong, but way off wrong. My assumption was correct. In fact the Muslim birthrate was even lower than I assumed.
I stand by what I said, even if I can’t source it. What I read concerned ethnically homogeneous fundamentalist Muslim areas, not entire oblasts, but districts within oblasts, probably in Ingushetia and Chechnya — even these oblasts have substantial percentages of ethnic Russians, who lower the overall fertility in the provincial demographic statistics. If I have remembered it correctly, the all-Muslim zones are breeding at fertility levels in excess of 4.0. But I could be totally wrong in my recollection.
If I ever rediscover the source, I will post it here. If I find something that contradicts it, I will post it here.
Until then, it would behoove you to acknowledge that I may be right, and that you may be right, since neither of us can prove his case.
Hi, Conservative Swede,
Just wanted to say that your unbiased support of Russia is not unfounded and is very much appreciated. Ignore the "ironic" attacks and know that you're 100% correct: Russia is very much the hope of the western civilization as we know it. It is not poisoned by political correctness and russian spirit is both is very much european (in the best sense of the word) and at the same time independant enough not to follow the suicidal example of the West.
Yes, I'm very uncomfortable by Putin's flirations with Iran, Hamas, Castro, Chavez and Co. But I still believe that russian soul is not rotten, unlike other nations' self-destruction. It is just not in our nature to be barbarians and unrestricted idiots many in the West imagine us to be.
Another thing: while there is indeed demographical disaster looming over my motherland, the picture is slightly different. There was a window of opportunity for the brain drain to happen late 80-s to mid 90-s. Many who could, like me, immigrated. We integrate into US society easily but we don't loose our identity. And... we have a lot more kids that we would have at home. And... we intend to go back some day. I became a double patriot, in some sense: I know the US from inside and do not support the antipathy of ordinary russians towards America. At the same time I do not appreciate the lack of understanding that some americans demonstrate while judging from afar the affairs that they know very little about.
Amicus Plato, sed magis amica Veritas!
Hi Solo!
Thanks for this comment! I hope you stick around here.
As for the rest of this discussion, it has moved on to another thread.
Post a Comment