Internal Problems of Russia

Bismark_Geist1571

Woodpecker
Catholic
I would be interested in hearing the reaction to this podcast of forum members informed about Russia. Here Peter Zeihan claims Russia is in a demographic collapse (discussion starts at about 9 minutes in):



This guy is supposedly some kind of a big deal (he worked for Stratfor) but I noticed some blatant errors he made such as calling Russians and Belarusians fellow “Serbs”.

He does mention how populations and fertility contract when people move to cities.


IMHO he has some good points, but his biases are very clear, for every hard truth he uttered like the lack of transport capacity on the part of Russians, who are facing now a soft blockade via negation of service by most shipping lines in strategic ports (like deepwaters ports) since most shipping lines and ship owners are in the west and susceptible to blackmail and threats as well as more subtle means, he tells outright nonsense if not blatant lies like "everything is ok with American demographics", "Russia and China expulsion from the world economy will not affect the US, being the most isolated world power from Globalization" (his own words) when everyone that knows anything about industry and logistics understand that US is a mostly de-industrialized country and many of the capacities and knowledge base in manufacturing would have to be rebuilt for an indsutrial renaissance to happen (in a process that will take years). Let alone other factors like cognitive decline, education decline, lower birthrates, etc . etc.

All in all I wouldn't buy his book.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Catholic
Gold Member
That's practically useless as Scandinavians countries, France and even Hungary have shown already in practice (none of those countries has been able to raise birthrates to 2 children per women in their original populations). This is because the problem is cultural and even religious (feminism, secularism, atheism, cultural rot, etc.) not economic. Hence, those incentives have favored, in places like France or the Netherlands, the demographic growth of non-native populations boosting their birthrates as long as they don't partake the cultural rot the pervades the current western civilization (first and second generation muslim arabs, first generation turks, etc., first gen muslim Africans).

The same is happening in almost all the former Christendom, even in countries from Hispanic America. The most formerly Christian populations (whites, mestizos, and mullatoes) have undergone drastic reductions in birthrates (from 4 or 5 fifty years ago to barely 2 per women), while mostly heathen populations (most pureblooded Indians and Blacks) have seen their births soar or at least keep themselves above what's necessary to maintain their populations.
Correct. The way to raise birth rates is the following:

A) Ban abortion, no exceptions ever
B) Ban harmful and long term contraceptives like IUDs and birth control pills
C) Remove all incentives for divorcing, such as all child support and female-friendly custody arrangements
D) Remove all educational subsidies for women
E) Remove all business subsidies for women

Just those five steps would net you a society in which women automatically prefer to marry and stay married instead of whoring it up throughout college and settling at 35.

But ALL of those are absolutely unthinkable even for even "based" "conservative" societies, and are impossible to implement without first also removing women's voting rights.

So collapse it is.
 

Goni

Woodpecker
The Russian opposition politician Boris Mironov made a documentary on YouTube claiming this exact statement. I just cannot find it now, it may have been removed or cancelled. Mironov is an independent, not part of the pro-Western opposition like Navalny, and he apparently has a portrait of Nikolai II Romanov in his office, from which he records his documentaries. He made a documentary about the great achievements of the Imperial Russia, which used to be one of the economical leaders in Europe, contrasting the current situation.
Imperial Russia was actually a very bacward place compared to Central or western Euroepan empires such as the British, German or Austro-Hungarian empires or French Republic and Italian Kingdom. Industrial and quality production of Russia couldn't compare with what the western and Central European states could produce.

Even certain places in the collapsing Ottoman Empire were better in terms of living conditions than the what the average Russian peasant had to go through.

Maybe China and certain places in Latin America were worst than Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries.

There was also serfdom in Russia up to late 1870s.

So I don't know what this guy Mirnov is talking about.

After all there was a reason why most Russian peasants were pro the Boleshvik Revolution ( despite (((who))) were behind the revolution and general ignorance of the population) .

Industrialisation started in the late 1920s under Stalin, despite that it caused millions of deaths and Holdomor, with the famous " 5 years plans" .
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
Someone from Russia told me that life is much as normal, and that people are of two opinions - either they are going back to the times of the 90s, or Russia is entering a new golden age.

Regarding poverty, if looking through a Western and American aesthetic lens, most places are poor. Russia seems poor in that the housing blocs are ugly, the cars are old (half because they are domestic beaters, half because of the geographic conditions of mud, snow, slush, etc), and the storefronts look dull.

City centres and their surroundings are generally quite well-kept and not shrouded in soul-destroying architecture. There isn't much difference between there and many Western cities.

The general quality of life of the middle class (say 20% of people) is much the same as in a Western country. It's just things they might waste money on that hit them - iPhones, laptops, holidays.

Of all the countries I have been to I'd say Russia-Belarus have the highest standard of living compared to what their salary seems to be. The average salary in Russia is about the same as in Colombia.

But ALL of those are absolutely unthinkable even for even "based" "conservative" societies, and are impossible to implement without first also removing women's voting rights.

Seems to be right about the MAGA trad-wife types. If you mention anything that is actually traditional, you quickly find that their version tradition ended in about 1996. They are probably more aggressive to tradition than they are groomers.
 

Stoyan

Pelican
Orthodox
Imperial Russia was actually a very bacward place compared to Central or western Euroepan empires such as the British, German or Austro-Hungarian empires or French Republic and Italian Kingdom. Industrial and quality production of Russia couldn't compare with what the western and Central European states could produce.

Even certain places in the collapsing Ottoman Empire were better in terms of living conditions than the what the average Russian peasant had to go through.

Maybe China and certain places in Latin America were worst than Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries.

There was also serfdom in Russia up to late 1870s.

So I don't know what this guy Mirnov is talking about.

After all there was a reason why most Russian peasants were pro the Boleshvik Revolution ( despite (((who))) were behind the revolution and general ignorance of the population) .

Industrialisation started in the late 1920s under Stalin, despite that it caused millions of deaths and Holdomor, with the famous " 5 years plans" .
Please don't tell lies about the Russian Empire. Under Stalin actually took place reindustrialization, after the Bolsheviks destroyed the previously existing industries of the Russian Empire.

I found the original lecture of Boris Mironov.



More documentation about high technology of the Russian Empire.





 
Last edited:

Goni

Woodpecker
Please don't tell lies about the Russian Empire. Under Stalin actually took place reindustrialization, after the Bolsheviks destroyed the previously existing industries of the Russian Empire.

I found the original lecture of Boris Mironov.



More documentation about high technology of the Russian Empire.






Sincerely you don't know what you are talking about and if you think that the Russian Empire was an " industrialized " country you are very wrong and I will stop this discussion with you here.

Russian Empire was an agricultural country which had serfdom till 1870s and these are simple facts.

Strength of Russia was based on it's manpower, large mass land and climate.

Rusia was very backeard compared to western and Central European empires and this was clearly shown against Japan in 1904 and against Germany and Austro-Hungary in WW1, both of which were fighting in 6 fronts.

Despite the crimes and genocides Bolsheviks and Stalin committed, Stalin did industrialize the Soviet Union, especially in heavy industry and military.

That is the reason ( among others) that they survived the storm of the 3rd Reich in 1941 and how they were able to produce 35,000 T34 tanks in 3 and a half years.
 

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
Imperial Russia was actually a very bacward place compared to Central or western Euroepan empires such as the British, German or Austro-Hungarian empires or French Republic and Italian Kingdom. Industrial and quality production of Russia couldn't compare with what the western and Central European states could produce.

Even certain places in the collapsing Ottoman Empire were better in terms of living conditions than the what the average Russian peasant had to go through.

Maybe China and certain places in Latin America were worst than Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries.

There was also serfdom in Russia up to late 1870s.

So I don't know what this guy Mirnov is talking about.

After all there was a reason why most Russian peasants were pro the Boleshvik Revolution ( despite (((who))) were behind the revolution and general ignorance of the population) .

Industrialisation started in the late 1920s under Stalin, despite that it caused millions of deaths and Holdomor, with the famous " 5 years plans" .

Because of the lack of forces that abolished serfdom which were in play in Western Europe including the push by the Black Death and the promotion of a free peasantry as well as the formation of a robust middle class. I think that's how the Bolsheviks had much greater success in Russia.

There was also a stronger commercial sector in Western Europe that also provided an escape valve for serfs.

And the Russian State was no doubt influenced by the Mongol invasions who were themselves influenced by the Oriental Despotism of China which isn't the traditional model of Monarchy that the Germanic peoples had in Western Europe:


In Western Europe. The King was the First among equals. The First Knight among the Knights of the Round Table. He would more frequently be himself in the Front Lines fighting as a Knight himself rather than ruling from afar in his Golden Cage of a Palace like the Oriental Emperor was in many ways.
 
Last edited:

Lunostrelki

Kingfisher
I used to think that Russia was more or less on the right track amidst all the chaos and degeneration of the modern world, but the country's poor performance in the war and a variety of other issues suggest to me that the positive aspects of its leadership amounts to too little, too late if the goal is to restore the strength and vitality of the Russian nation.

First, Russia isn't losing in the Ukraine but it's not winning either. Everyone knows that Ukraine is a part of the Russian cultural sphere that came to be politically dominated by Russophobes from the Galician region. Putin's intention at the beginning was to bring the core portion of Ukraine (i.e. Kiev) back into the Russian world. Operationally speaking, yes we can say that the northern front successfully diverted Ukrainian forces from reinforcing the Donbass, but strategically it is a massive embarrassment that they had to scale back the reunification of the triune Russian nation to the "liberation" of a marginal area. I would like to say that Russia will encircle the Ukrainians in Donbass and end the war quickly, but after the events of the last month I cannot be sure that they won't find some way to mess it up.

More broadly speaking, the war itself is a tragedy. Not just in the sense that people are dying, but that it's not a glorious defense of the motherland like the Great Patriotic War could be understood as; rather it is a civil war between people who were only separated for lame political reasons. The fact that things got to this point show that Russian leadership, even with Putin in charge and saying some good things, is institutionally and spiritually compromised.

If things continue to the way they are, Russians will become a minority (or barely a majority) in their own country, Russia may further split apart (the end of the USSR was not just the end of communism but also the dismemberment of the Russian world), and the country will be a far cry from its former self, kind of like the modern Greece versus Classical Greece or the Byzantine Empire. Parts of Siberia could become "autonomous regions" of China simply because the local nationalities might look to Beijing for political and economic patronage, while the ethnic Russian residents just won't care enough to stop it.

A country's culture is in large part reinforced and maintained by its elites. I don't see much indication that the the Russian elite (Putin, siloviki, and oligarchs) are sincere about rebuilding Russia. They've been incredibly lazy and self-serving, moving more than $1 trillion in assets abroad. That is Russian money, wealth created by Russians and yet not staying in Russia. I don't really blame Putin for this situation, after all, every leader relies on fellow elites to maintain his power and that's basically the hand he was dealt. In many ways he is doing better than one might expect of a nobody who came from the lower-middle ranks of the Soviet security apparatus — at least Russia has a clear leader and hasn't totally collapsed into internecine struggles (at least on the surface). But it doesn't change the fact that Russia remains in decline generation after generation, and reversing this decline would need a strong grassroots spiritual energy among the people. I don't see any evidence of such a trend getting underway or receiving sincere political support.

Instead, everything I see points to Russians in the big cities wishing they were in the West, and people in rural areas wishing they were in the cities. There isn't much Russian cultural production because Russians from the government to the people seem to not be all that interested in maintaining and enriching their heritage.

Perhaps Russia has always been like this to a certain extent, with the elites learning most of their culture from Europeans and the serfs just getting on with their toil, accepting their lot in life. That may have been okay when people still lived in a traditional way, had many children, and maintained faith in God as a matter of course. Now, the pressures and corruption of modern industrial society mean that people and leaders would have to actively resist the degeneration.

It can't be done by the government simply making a few based statements or lavishing money on the church and clergymen, who may or may not be actually devout. To revive the culture of Russia (or any other ancient culture, for that matter) and restore traditional laws and customs, would require a genuine spiritual revival, where people truly and sincerely return to faith, but the challenges in doing so are obviously tremendous.

Assuming the spiritual hurdle can be overcome, there's also a question of cultural identity. Are Russians Europeans or Asians? Can they choose to be neither? It seems to me that Russians have always faced this uncertainty. Despite the massive size of the country, they live on the periphery of Western civilization and as mentioned before, the elites learned mostly from European high culture. Compared with Chinese, who act and feel like they are the empire at the center of the world, Russia has not built up a truly Russo-centric identity in the last few hundred years. One option would be to pivot to the East as the West becomes more obviously degenerate, but that may not be desirable or possible given the gulf between the cultural, religious, and racial characteristics of Slavs and East Asians — and Asia also has its own problems that it may or may not be able to overcome.

At the same time, establishing and fleshing out an entire unique Russian identity is no easy task. People only do things if they feel it's "natural." Forcing a reversion back to old or rustic forms without popular will or demand behind it will just look strange and may even have the opposite of the intended effect.
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Catholic
Gold Member
Imperial Russia was actually a very bacward place compared to Central or western Euroepan empires such as the British, German or Austro-Hungarian empires or French Republic and Italian Kingdom. Industrial and quality production of Russia couldn't compare with what the western and Central European states could produce.

Even certain places in the collapsing Ottoman Empire were better in terms of living conditions than the what the average Russian peasant had to go through.

Maybe China and certain places in Latin America were worst than Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries.

There was also serfdom in Russia up to late 1870s.

So I don't know what this guy Mirnov is talking about.

After all there was a reason why most Russian peasants were pro the Boleshvik Revolution ( despite (((who))) were behind the revolution and general ignorance of the population) .

Industrialisation started in the late 1920s under Stalin, despite that it caused millions of deaths and Holdomor, with the famous " 5 years plans" .

That is a false view of pre-Bolshevik Russia, which was commonly propagated in the West.

Russia was on the verge of becoming the greatest industrial and economic power in the world at the turn of the century. Russia had some of the world's greatest scientists then, people like Mendeleev, who hailed from a small Siberian town and rose to become the world's premier chemist. Mendeleev was a polymath who predicted in 1900 that Russia would have 500 million people in 2000 and would be the world's greatest power.

It is that potential that has scared the world sea power, which was Britain then, and is the GAE today. This is broadly documented in all serious geopolitical theory works, from Mackinder to Brzezinski. Breaking Russia has been their obsession ever since, and the Ukraine war is their latest attempt at that. Ukraine is being used against Russia the same way Japan was used in 1905, in a war against Russia funded by the Schiffs, Rothschilds and co. The same people who funded Bolshevism, Lenin and Trotsky were under their payroll.

Unfortunately those people did manage to crush Russia's potential over 100 years ago. It is only now that Russia is recovering from this monumental damage that killed nearly 100 million people, so the West and its elite rulers, as well as tens of millions of misguided Europeans (Poles, Ukies, Georgians etc) are now panicking over the prospect of Russia rising to its potential...

Russian agriculture was thriving under the Tsars, Russia before Bolshevism was the world's largest exporter of wheat, accounting for 1/3 of the global trade. They went from this, to starving under the Bolsheviks. The Soviet Union, with the largest amount of arable land in the world, couldn't even sustain itself and had to rely on American grain imports to survive (so much for Stalin being a good ruler, the guy was an inept commie brute). The myth of the Soviets modernizing Russian agriculture and industry is a prime case of historical inversion, they took a country that was thriving economically and made it a poor, starving dystopia.

Only under Putin that Russia regained its world prominence in agriculture, ruling over the global wheat trade today, a position which will be even more dominant with the absorption of most of the Ukrainian wheat belt this year.

1650391566901.png

The trope of pre-Bolshevik Russia being a kind of backwards medieval hellhole is pure Jewish/western propaganda aimed at the ancestral archenemy and the biggest threat to the global sea hegemon. What is true for agriculture in 1900 Russia was also true about their industry. As well Tsarist Russia had an independent banking system that wasn't under Rothschild control, even then they coveted their wealth and massive resources, with Baku being the first major oil producing center in Europe. The Russian upper class was the cream of Europe, and dominated prime upscale tourist destinations, like France's riviera, which they've practically founded. Nice, France in 1900:

large.jpg
 
Last edited:

RexImperator

Crow
Gold Member
Operationally speaking, yes we can say that the northern front successfully diverted Ukrainian forces from reinforcing the Donbass, but strategically it is a massive embarrassment that they had to scale back the reunification of the triune Russian nation to the "liberation" of a marginal area.
In my amateur opinion the complete capture of Ukraine by Russia was not Putin's goal in this war.

I think of the Kiev offensive kind of like Operation Market Garden in WW2 - a failed stretch goal to shorten the war. It looks like in addition to the diversionary aspect, the goal was to push the Ukraine government into a rapid collapse. It failed for myriad reasons (some quite embarrassing...tires?...radios?) and Russia cut its losses there.

With regard to Market Garden in WW2, a failed operation does not mean the war's ultimate outcome changed - it just took longer.

I do agree with the broader theme in your post about Russia's problems, which also trace back to demography (with an underlying spiritual basis/crisis) just as in the West.

Even if the globalists fail to unite the world under their single system, and there are separate Western/Russian/Chinese spheres, right now all of three of them look to be either already distastefully authoritarian or trending that way.
 

911

Peacock
Catholic
Gold Member
I used to think that Russia was more or less on the right track amidst all the chaos and degeneration of the modern world, but the country's poor performance in the war and a variety of other issues suggest to me that the positive aspects of its leadership amounts to too little, too late if the goal is to restore the strength and vitality of the Russian nation.

First, Russia isn't losing in the Ukraine but it's not winning either. Everyone knows that Ukraine is a part of the Russian cultural sphere that came to be politically dominated by Russophobes from the Galician region. Putin's intention at the beginning was to bring the core portion of Ukraine (i.e. Kiev) back into the Russian world. Operationally speaking, yes we can say that the northern front successfully diverted Ukrainian forces from reinforcing the Donbass, but strategically it is a massive embarrassment that they had to scale back the reunification of the triune Russian nation to the "liberation" of a marginal area. I would like to say that Russia will encircle the Ukrainians in Donbass and end the war quickly, but after the events of the last month I cannot be sure that they won't find some way to mess it up.

More broadly speaking, the war itself is a tragedy. Not just in the sense that people are dying, but that it's not a glorious defense of the motherland like the Great Patriotic War could be understood as; rather it is a civil war between people who were only separated for lame political reasons. The fact that things got to this point show that Russian leadership, even with Putin in charge and saying some good things, is institutionally and spiritually compromised.

If things continue to the way they are, Russians will become a minority (or barely a majority) in their own country, Russia may further split apart (the end of the USSR was not just the end of communism but also the dismemberment of the Russian world), and the country will be a far cry from its former self, kind of like the modern Greece versus Classical Greece or the Byzantine Empire. Parts of Siberia could become "autonomous regions" of China simply because the local nationalities might look to Beijing for political and economic patronage, while the ethnic Russian residents just won't care enough to stop it.

A country's culture is in large part reinforced and maintained by its elites. I don't see much indication that the the Russian elite (Putin, siloviki, and oligarchs) are sincere about rebuilding Russia. They've been incredibly lazy and self-serving, moving more than $1 trillion in assets abroad. That is Russian money, wealth created by Russians and yet not staying in Russia. I don't really blame Putin for this situation, after all, every leader relies on fellow elites to maintain his power and that's basically the hand he was dealt. In many ways he is doing better than one might expect of a nobody who came from the lower-middle ranks of the Soviet security apparatus — at least Russia has a clear leader and hasn't totally collapsed into internecine struggles (at least on the surface). But it doesn't change the fact that Russia remains in decline generation after generation, and reversing this decline would need a strong grassroots spiritual energy among the people. I don't see any evidence of such a trend getting underway or receiving sincere political support.

Instead, everything I see points to Russians in the big cities wishing they were in the West, and people in rural areas wishing they were in the cities. There isn't much Russian cultural production because Russians from the government to the people seem to not be all that interested in maintaining and enriching their heritage.

Perhaps Russia has always been like this to a certain extent, with the elites learning most of their culture from Europeans and the serfs just getting on with their toil, accepting their lot in life. That may have been okay when people still lived in a traditional way, had many children, and maintained faith in God as a matter of course. Now, the pressures and corruption of modern industrial society mean that people and leaders would have to actively resist the degeneration.

It can't be done by the government simply making a few based statements or lavishing money on the church and clergymen, who may or may not be actually devout. To revive the culture of Russia (or any other ancient culture, for that matter) and restore traditional laws and customs, would require a genuine spiritual revival, where people truly and sincerely return to faith, but the challenges in doing so are obviously tremendous.

Assuming the spiritual hurdle can be overcome, there's also a question of cultural identity. Are Russians Europeans or Asians? Can they choose to be neither? It seems to me that Russians have always faced this uncertainty. Despite the massive size of the country, they live on the periphery of Western civilization and as mentioned before, the elites learned mostly from European high culture. Compared with Chinese, who act and feel like they are the empire at the center of the world, Russia has not built up a truly Russo-centric identity in the last few hundred years. One option would be to pivot to the East as the West becomes more obviously degenerate, but that may not be desirable or possible given the gulf between the cultural, religious, and racial characteristics of Slavs and East Asians — and Asia also has its own problems that it may or may not be able to overcome.

At the same time, establishing and fleshing out an entire unique Russian identity is no easy task. People only do things if they feel it's "natural." Forcing a reversion back to old or rustic forms without popular will or demand behind it will just look strange and may even have the opposite of the intended effect.

The problem with any country starts with its elite, as the saying goes, the fish rots from the head down. That is why Russia's enemies culled nearly all of its aristocracy and upper classes, along with the clergy, in the 1920s-30s. The same project took place during the French Revolution (though to a lesser extent as the Grande Terreur -Reign of Terror- only lasted 10 months), and in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge genocided 95% of their upper class, culling about 40% of their entire population, practically decapitating one of Asia's oldest surviving great civilizations.

Not only did the Bolshevik cull about a third of their best, but they've also imposed a system that further actively rotted the moral standards of the remaining masses, holding and degrading the country for nearly 3 generations. The ultimate goal of communism is to debase and degrade the masses by culling national traditions, family and faith, and it is a goal that they had largely achieved. That is why not only Russia but most of Eastern Europe has endemic corruption problems, and a culture that is vulnerable to western influence.

This being said, you have to give Putin a lot of credit for pushing his country in the right direction, improving its economy and trying to shore up its cultural fiber, with for instance the elevation of the national faith, and the building of 25,000 churches. Russia is slowly healing, coming out of a horrendously difficult and traumatic 20th century.
 
Last edited:

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
The problem with any country starts with its elite, as the saying goes, the fish rots from the head down. That is why Russia's enemies culled nearly all of its aristocracy and upper classes, along with the clergy, in the 1920s-30s. The same project took place during the French Revolution (though to a lesser extent as the Grande Terreur -Reign of Terror- only lasted 10 months), and in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge genocided 95% of their upper class, culling about 40% of their entire population, practically decapitating one of Asia's oldest surviving great civilizations.

Not only did the Bolshevik cull about a third of their best, but they've also imposed a system that further actively rotted the moral standards of the remaining masses, holding and degrading the country for nearly 3 generations. The ultimate goal of communism is to debase and degrade the masses by culling national traditions, family and faith, and it is a goal that they had largely achieved. That is why not only Russia but most of Eastern Europe has endemic corruption problems, and a culture that is vulnerable to western influence.

This being said, you have to give Putin a lot of credit for pushing his country in the right direction, improving its economy and trying to shore up its cultural fiber, with for instance the elevation of the national faith, and the building of 25,000 churches. Russia is slowly healing, coming out of a horrendously difficult and traumatic 20th century.

Its like if the Bolsheviks took over Europe and Britain. And killed their entire royalty and their families. And also their entire upper class. I remember reading that to consolidate power under his Totalitarian regime Qin Shi Huang killed the royalty and the entire royal families of the countries he conquered. Hence consolidating power under one Empire in Qin Dynasty:
As Qin swept through the ancient Chinese system in the final wars of unification, Qin resorted to a series of brutish measures to control conquered populations: mass killing of royal families and defeated armies, enforced mass migration of noble and wealthy families to the capital, demolition of the six states’ defense structures, imposition of direct rule with collective responsibility and mutual surveillance, establishment of settlements in problem-prone areas by Qin’s convicts, and so on. 232 Thus, no matter how disgruntled the subjects might be, the First Emperor was able to keep them in awe.
- pp 217-218, "War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe" by Victoria Tin-Bor Hui


Can you imagine if Queen Victoria was killed along with her entire family under a Communist regime?
 

Stoyan

Pelican
Orthodox
Can you imagine if Queen Victoria was killed along with her entire family under a Communist regime?
There is actually an alternate history that was written by someone on the internet that describes just that. I can't find it now. But it basically describes a parallel timeline in which the Communist revolution happened in Western European countries, rather than in the Russian Empire.
 

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
Correct. The way to raise birth rates is the following:

A) Ban abortion, no exceptions ever
B) Ban harmful and long term contraceptives like IUDs and birth control pills
C) Remove all incentives for divorcing, such as all child support and female-friendly custody arrangements
D) Remove all educational subsidies for women
E) Remove all business subsidies for women

Just those five steps would net you a society in which women automatically prefer to marry and stay married instead of whoring it up throughout college and settling at 35.

But ALL of those are absolutely unthinkable even for even "based" "conservative" societies, and are impossible to implement without first also removing women's voting rights.

So collapse it is.

Also change from the Duluth Model invented by feminists here:

A model of domestic violence that only persecutes and destroys Men without regard to women's role in it. As well as specifically targeting Christian Families in particular in accordance with the design of the Demonic Powers. Equating Christian sex roles as "abuse" or "domestic violence" despite evidence to the contrary.

And destroyed the families of many innocent Men and driving many Men to suicide as well as helping the alienation of his children from him. And isn't really about real domestic violence which should be addressed this way:


The inventor of Women's domestic violence shelters got said issue hijacked by feminists of her day. Who personally threatened her life:


About the reality of domestic violence:


Shorter interview with Cassie Jaye:
 

nagareboshi

Kingfisher
Orthodox
There are almost no urban dwellers who can trace their ancestry to other urban dwellers for more than four generations. In other words, the urban dwellers of for example the early 19th century have no genetic continuity with modern urban dwellers.

The conclusion of this article is that the urban populations have been slowly dying out over the generations, and that the cities have been replenished only by new rural immigrants in each generation. This means that if there wouldn't have been any rural immigrants at all, then the cities would have slowly died out and become abandoned.

The cities are artificial constructs, existing only at the expense of the rural areas, relying on them both for food imports, as well as replenishing the population.

This makes me wonder, and I'm seriously open to feedback from people in this thread who have expertise on this subject: in what ways were the ancient cities different from modern cities? Why are modern cities so anti-human, while ancient cities have existed since 1000 BC?

A while ago, I visited an ancient city in the Middle East and was shocked at how the rich and poor lived in the same districts and how the individual houses meshed together harmoniously with the ordinary streets. Walking around, there was hardly any space for vehicles, and merchants, women, children, and beggars roamed around living their daily lives.
 

Stoyan

Pelican
Orthodox
Why are modern cities so anti-human.
See this post:

 

Stoyan

Pelican
Orthodox
Russians are going the opposite way, promoting motherhood and raising normal babies in normal families in their popular culture. This has actually helped raise the fertility rate of young Russian woman, as well as lowering their abortion rates.
Can you post some links or references here?
 
Top