Migrant invasion of Europe

Rob Banks

Pelican
That's a very debatable statement to start with. Up until Late Medieval Times many non-Christian elements were present, even central to the faithful. Think folk magic, ancestor worship, the existence of fairees/elves/giants, the use of talismans, personal divination, the use of spells and incantations etc.
These non-Christian elements being present (and it's debatable to what extent they were), in my opinion, is preferable to the non-Christian elements we have today (i.e. modernist globohomo culture). In fact, it's not even close.
There were, and basically are, two types of Christianity. One for the (illiterate) masses, and the other one for the spiritual, theologically well versed clergy (who left all the written accounts). You can't expect an illiterate farmer to understand the intrisicalities of the Christian faith
This is a very elitist view of Christianity (where only the well-educated, and not the "illiterate simpletons," can truly understand the faith). In fact, Christianity represents the opposite of elitism. You don't need an Ivy League education (or Medieval equivalent) or an IQ of 150 to be a true Christian.
Illiteracy breeds dependance (on clerics), it breeds the spread (or resurgence) of pre-Christian beliefs and customs (due to theological illiteracy), and it creates a fertile ground for heresies (as many charismatic preachers cannot be countered due to the same theological blindness). If you can't read you also can't read the Bible
I would argue that dependence on clerics (as opposed to everyone interpreting the Bible however they want) is very desirable and good.

That doesn't mean it's bad to read the Bible. But even if you are able to read the Bible, you should still be trusting the interpretations of good priests and theologians, and not just interpreting it however you see fit.

The heresies and non-Christian beliefs we have today are worse than the ones in Medieval times, and, due to modern media and communication technology (TV, music, computers, etc.), these heresies and anti-Christian beliefs are able to influence people on a global scale and even become the norm, replacing Christianity (as opposed to merely influencing a few people in some remote village).
 
These non-Christian elements being present (and it's debatable to what extent they were), in my opinion, is preferable to the non-Christian elements we have today (i.e. modernist globohomo culture). In fact, it's not even close.

This is a very elitist view of Christianity (where only the well-educated, and not the "illiterate simpletons," can truly understand the faith). In fact, Christianity represents the opposite of elitism. You don't need an Ivy League education (or Medieval equivalent) or an IQ of 150 to be a true Christian.

I would argue that dependence on clerics (as opposed to everyone interpreting the Bible however they want) is very desirable and good.

That doesn't mean it's bad to read the Bible. But even if you are able to read the Bible, you should still be trusting the interpretations of good priests and theologians, and not just interpreting it however you see fit.

The heresies and non-Christian beliefs we have today are worse than the ones in Medieval times, and, due to modern media and communication technology (TV, music, computers, etc.), these heresies and anti-Christian beliefs are able to influence people on a global scale and even become the norm, replacing Christianity (as opposed to merely influencing a few people in some remote village).

You make these huge illogical leaps and then casually talk over it. Literacy is bad because globohomo uses mass media to corrupt society?

Apparantly I am an elitist for stating that the teachings of the RC Church were written by highly intelligent polyglots. So were they not? Seminary itself takes 8-10 years, that in itself indicates the intellectual nature of Christian doctrine. Also, where did I state that you can not be a true Christian when you are not on the intellectual level of the church fathers? Stop putting words in my mouth

Most of your other statements show historical unawareness. Not trying to be condescending here, but why not read some books or articles about Christianity in the Middle Ages before engaging in online discussions?
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I really don't buy the line that these people were law abiding, good-spirited people who, in the very moment they set foot on European soil, got corrupted by the evil White men and started uncivilised/ criminal behaviour abroad

There are no 'noble savages' in any of these countries

About that statement about the absence of no-go zones in Africa: when I was in Kenya the locals begged me not to visit the local Somali Eastleigh slum. It is, in many of these countries, also widely known that the rampant corruption has made criminals and government (up till the highest levels) two sides of the same coin

I'm not putting a subjective "noble savage" stamp on them here, just stating objective measures. Most of the immigrants in say France or Germany come from countries where most people are law abiding, and their societies very conservative. Places like Algeria, Turkey, Senegal, Cameroon, Pakistan etc have relatively low crime rates. There is a handful of war-torn countries that have bred lawless immigrants like Somalia or Congo, but those are the exceptions. Young immigrants in the West only become feral when they grow up in the kind of socially broken and lax urban environments that have been fostered for the last few decades.

You have had the same dynamic in the US, where the urban ghettos that metastasized in the 1970s were made up from a relatively law-abiding, conservative rural southern Black population that had tight-knit communities and strong family structures. Their societies disintegrated when they were put in the big cities, their culture perverted and family structure broken.
 

Serie A1

Robin
I lived in one, I can tell you many exist.

You are free to believe an american journalist if you prefer, of course.
Hmm... I find this journalist very, very trustworthy and find no reason whatsoever that I should doubt what he has to say, especially when he flip flops on a politically controversial subject.

Guys, Daniel Pipes is not a journalist. He's a prominent historian and political commentator who is also an influential Zionist ideologue.

That even this guy would retract what he himself popularised re: Europe being filled with 'no-go areas' should tell you everything about the veracity of that initial claim.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
You make these huge illogical leaps and then casually talk over it. Literacy is bad because globohomo uses mass media to corrupt society?
I never said literacy is bad. I just said it is not automatically this universal good that everyone seems to think it is, and it is certainly not worth destroying communities and traditional agricultural ways of life in order to achieve it.

Mass-produced communications technology in general (including, but not limited to, books and printed media) is, in fact, bad because globohomo uses it to corrupt society.
Apparantly I am an elitist for stating that the teachings of the RC Church were written by highly intelligent polyglots. So were they not? Seminary itself takes 8-10 years, that in itself indicates the intellectual nature of Christian doctrine. Also, where did I state that you can not be a true Christian when you are not on the intellectual level of the church fathers? Stop putting words in my mouth
You said "You can't expect an illiterate farmer to understand the intrisicalities of the Christian faith," and you seemed to be implying that lack of literacy/education is bad and somehow prevents people from fully understanding their faith.
Most of your other statements show historical unawareness. Not trying to be condescending here, but why not read some books or articles about Christianity in the Middle Ages before engaging in online discussions?
 
Last edited:

Papaya

Crow
Gold Member

Löfven's perceived reversal has added fuel to the fire.

“As of 21.00 tonight, Stefan Löfven decided that it is no longer racist to link immigration with crime,” Moderate MP Arin Karapet tweeted. “Yesterday it was racist, fascist and indecent to make that connection. Something dramatic has happened in the last 24 hours, and reality has caught up with the Social Democrats,” he added.

Maybe a turning point has actually been reached
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
I really don't buy the line that these people were law abiding, good-spirited people who, in the very moment they set foot on European soil, got corrupted by the evil White men and started uncivilised/ criminal behaviour abroad

This is not what I'm saying.
Of course "those people" contain law-breaking, uncivilized people, thugs etc(perhaps more or a lot more than other races/nations, that's a debate on "raciality" I don't want to go into here). The difference is that in non-European countries, everybody understands that thugs are bad and can talk freely about it, and thugs are kept in check, to the best of the country's ability to do so.
Whereas in European countries people are continually terrified to contradict the anti-racist official narrative by calling thugs thugs and continually practice self-censorship. Law enforcement agents are continually pressured by SJWs and especially journalists and judges, to buy into this narrative.

France is well-known for the fact that most petty criminals arrested by the mostly conservative police force are instantly freed by SJW judges. Criminals know about it and make fun about the policemen who arrest them.

The end goal is Gulag government as Solzhenitsyn described it, where thugs serve as a layer of government between the people and the elite.

the very moment they set foot on European soil, got corrupted by the evil White men and started uncivilised/ criminal behaviour abroad

No, they probably were corrupted already, but they realized that " uncivilised/ criminal behaviour" was much easier on European soil, and even glorified by a large segment of the culture, such as rap music etc.
 
Last edited:
I never said literacy is bad. I just said it is not automatically this universal good that everyone seems to think it is, and it is certainly not worth destroying communities and traditional agricultural ways of life in order to achieve it.

Mass-produced communications technology in general (including, but not limited to, books and printed media) is, in fact, bad because globohomo uses it to corrupt society.

You said "You can't expect an illiterate farmer to understand the intrisicalities of the Christian faith," and you seemed to be implying that lack of literacy/education is bad and somehow prevents people from fully understanding their faith.


All forces on this planet are always in flux. Out of good comes evil and vice versa. That's why the doomer talk gets boring after a while - especially when coupled with the distorted belief that history is a steep downward line to where we are now

I believe that globohomo is essentially a slightly altered form of feudalism. All the rest is just window dressing and means to an end. The difference is that this time it's global and technology based, and with much more pros, like free money, free (stripped down) healthcare and a free pension system. That's why it's so appealing to the weak

A life without dangers, without worries, without real freedom, without real meaning and full of empty distractions

The Medieval feudalism, the proto-feudalism (court system) and the city states/absolute monarchies - that you seem to hold as something of a pure, unspoilt and golden past of Christianity were in reality 50 percent infant mortality, incessant violence on both micro and macro level, serfdom, intermittent famines and a watered down form of Christianity coupled with widespread pagan remnants/superstition

Most importantly though it was a very effective control system. And like know 90 percent bluf

--
Yes of course is a lack of education bad. And yes, most Christians do no (fully) understand their faith because, again, it was moulded by some of the brightest minds in Late Antiquity

Augustinus of Hippo called that relation between reason/ understanding and belief a 'leap of faith' (ie. the two can coexist but not always, and if they seemingly don't, put your faith in God first)
 
Last edited:
I'm not putting a subjective "noble savage" stamp on them here, just stating objective measures. Most of the immigrants in say France or Germany come from countries where most people are law abiding, and their societies very conservative. Places like Algeria, Turkey, Senegal, Cameroon, Pakistan etc have relatively low crime rates. There is a handful of war-torn countries that have bred lawless immigrants like Somalia or Congo, but those are the exceptions. Young immigrants in the West only become feral when they grow up in the kind of socially broken and lax urban environments that have been fostered for the last few decades.

You have had the same dynamic in the US, where the urban ghettos that metastasized in the 1970s were made up from a relatively law-abiding, conservative rural southern Black population that had tight-knit communities and strong family structures. Their societies disintegrated when they were put in the big cities, their culture perverted and family structure broken.

Saying that those countries have low crime rates because statistics is like saying that China has great safety labor laws because never ever do incidents get reported

Domestic violence, sexual abuse, animal abuse etc are all shockingly common in the third world (exception in your list is Turkey which is much more European in mentality) yet it goes below the radar

I agree that violent crime is a bit lower, but only because they fear the law. In return for that you get religious extremism, sectarianism and tribal warfare. (and in Turkey a form of toxic nationalism)

The type of conservatism that permeats these parts of the world has nothing to do with what we try to conserve in the West. The fact that they hate gay marriage doesn't make them an ally.

Also let's just address the elephant in the room here. The fact that these people don't get along in Western society is for the main part a huge gap in IQ levels (African immigrants) and a sense of religious supremacy for the Islamic immigrants
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
All forces on this planet are always in flux. Out of good comes evil and vice versa. That's why the doomer talk gets boring after a while - especially when coupled with the distorted belief that history is a steep downward line to where we are now
No, just a steep downward decline since the Industrial Revolution. A decline which is directly correlated to the level of technological advancement.
I believe that globohomo is essentially a slightly altered form of feudalism. All the rest is just window dressing and means to an end. The difference is that this time it's global and technology based, and with much more pros, like free money, free (stripped down) healthcare and a free pension system. That's why it's so appealing to the weak
How many feudal lords were pushing gay acceptance, abortion, sexual "freedom," psychiatric drugs, atheism, etc. If they had done this, it would have been such a big scandal they they would have been dragged off their land and killed by a mob of outraged villagers and peasants. And the king (or local nobility) would not have defended them.
A life without dangers, without worries, without real freedom, without real meaning and full of empty distractions
Yes, exactly. That is the ultimate goal of this increasingly technologically-advanced world we live in.
The Medieval feudalism, the proto-feudalism (court system) and the city states/absolute monarchies - that you seem to hold as something of a pure, unspoilt and golden past of Christianity were in reality 50 percent infant mortality, incessant violence on both micro and macro level, serfdom, intermittent famines and a watered down form of Christianity coupled with widespread pagan remnants/superstition
High infant mortality was just a normal part of life (as were things like death from tuberculosis and other diseases that are now treatable). Like I said, it's a trade-off. We now have our low infant mortality and efficient medical care, but at what cost? At the cost of our souls.

As for violence, the only reason we are more "peaceful" today is because the all-powerful state uses military technology (guns, vehicles, etc.) to have what amounts to absolute control over society. If you're feuding with the family next door, you can't settle it like men anymore because you will go to jail. Instead, you need to solve your disputes through the court system (essentially begging a judge to take your side, and enlisting the state to do violence on your behalf).

Is this better than vigilante justice? Maybe. But it requires government to be in complete control.
Most importantly though it was a very effective control system. And like know 90 percent bluf
Yes, it was a very effective control system for its time. But they did not have advanced weapons, motor vehicles, airplanes, and advanced communications technology (phones and internet), all of which are used today by the state, which has far greater control over you day-to-day life than in the middle ages.

People (including peasants and commoners) actually had a lot more freedom back then than they do now.
Yes of course is a lack of education bad...
"Appeal to popularity" fallacy.

Just because the modern world agrees that "of course we all need formal education" doesn't make it true. The modern world also agrees on a lot of things (democracy, globohomo values, etc.) that are clearly not good.

Did you read the post I linked to in my previous message (entitled "The Beast System & the god of Technology")? @ilostabet really does a way better job than me of breaking all this down.
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
I believe that globohomo is essentially a slightly altered form of feudalism. (...) The difference is that this time it's global and technology based, and with much more pros, like free money, free (stripped down) healthcare and a free pension system. That's why it's so appealing to the weak

I find you VERY optimistic. I think you are very mistaken in attributing to the globohomo things that were merely stolen and taken over by them, and maintained in a "stripped down" form as you say only because they couldn't be destroyed all at once. To mention a few examples :

- Do you believe that today's calls to "defund the police" are not worth worrying about and that the globohomo elites will stop at anything short of a "police force" whose only role is to enforce the globohomo dogma ?

- Do you seriously believe that the globohomo elites will not act significantly on their eugenicist obsession about drastically reducing the world population ?

Historical precedents (the Revolutions in France, Russia, China etc) hardly confirm your view.

The difference is that this time it's (...) technology based

Even if it that were the only difference, it would still be a huge one. Yesterday man was a wolf to other men, as the Roman saying went ; tomorrow he will be a Godzilla to other men.
 

Sitting Bull

Sparrow
50 percent infant mortality

Well, that should be compared to the abortion statistics of today.
The modern West also brags about its wonderfully high duration of life. I beg to differ, the standard of living should also be considered in the equation. There is testimony of 80-year-old soldiers in pre-WW2 Japan still training 10 hours a day, and of an equally elderly general winning a battle during the French monarchy period. Today's eugenicism is a natural (if not praiseworthy) reaction to the great mass of old zombies on life support whose main function is to furnish some revenue to the doctors and pharma industry.

incessant violence on both micro and macro level

Same today, except that the violence is 1) more focused on economic goals and 2) psychological, with the gigantic expansion of social engineering, mass advertisting, mass schooling, mass media etc.

a watered down form of Christianity

Not sure on what grounds you call it "watered down", but surely, no Christianity can be more watered down than today's one, where most if not all important Christian leaders sell out on basically every issue.

Christianity coupled with widespread pagan remnants/superstition

This is the modern anti-Christian take on the issue, but I very seriously doubt if the MiddleAgers themselves considered them "pagan" or superstitious.
Conservative Christians are very cautious about whay they accept as Christian, and rightly so. But unfortunately, they have often internalized the commands of their enemies regarding what they declare un-Christian.

To mention a typical example, we are so saturated with porn and hype of dysfunctional families today that we have become deaf and blind to the religious view on sex, as encountered in the Song of Songs or in other religions.

Also let's just address the elephant in the room here. The fact that these people don't get along in Western society is for the main part a huge gap in IQ levels (African immigrants) and a sense of religious supremacy for the Islamic immigrants

Those are factors, sure, but obviously not the main part. Differences between European & African mentality, or Islamic supremacism, existed centuries before immigration became a problem.

The real elephant in the room is this - that mass immigration is so obviously unnatural and contrary to the most common human tendency of like gathering with like that it can only occur on very weakened and partially degenerate societies, and even then, it can only be maintained with a massive apparatus of propaganda and censorship.
 
Last edited:

Serie A1

Robin
I don't understand what your motive was for posting this. I am guessing it has something to do the usual low-key muslim bragging about demographically taking over a country (and therefor destroying it). Those who have lived amongst muslims will know what I am talking about.

"In 2060 Russia (or insert any other country) will be fully Islamic alhamdullilah. We have more babies, there is nothing you can do about it"

Spurring demoralisation and defeatism. And some trolling of course

Here's some real facts

*According to a 2017 study by the US State Department, Russia's muslim population stands at around 10 percent. Mind you, of those 14.7 million muslims the majority is Tatar/Bashkir and they, therefor, will likely have more affiliation with Russia than with islam

*

The statistics on the TFR per region debunk your implied notion of a fast growing muslim populace in Russia. The birthrates for predominantly muslim areas and predominantly Christian areas are nearly similar, with only tiny Chechnya being the exception

* Russia has millions of Central Asians within its border. However, after the 2014-2015 US sanctions and the subsequent recession many Central Asian workers left the country. I am sure corona will have only sped that process up

1. The point behind my posting the dry facts of Russia's demography was to point out the absurdity of viewing Russia as some kind of ethnic, religious and linguistic monolith. It is anything but. Russia hosts one of the largest Islamic populations in Europe and is home to the continent's only Buddhist-majority republic. Accordingly, native Russians can look White, East Asian, Eurasian, Turkic, Chinese-White...

2. The Russian authorities themselves use this diversity as a source of soft power. For example, during the 2018 FIFA World Cup, they proudly pointed to the fact that Kazan was the first Muslim-majority city to host top-level World Cup matches (the U-17 and U-20 tournaments are a different story).

3. The difference between Christian and Muslim birthrates in Russia is, as you say, generally not that significant. And even in Chechnya, things are changing. However, it is generally recognised that the number of Muslims in Russia is probably consistently underestimated.
 

LeoniusD

Kingfisher
Picture was supposedly not altered - the real source of unfitting mass migration to the west:

Ei1abMoWAAAwbyZ.jpg

While that is true and many large terrorist attacks are false flags - this and hundreds of thousands of rapes and attacks are being done by Muslims:



The student, aged 22, identified only as Elisabeth, said she was punched in the face in the eastern city of Strasbourg on Friday afternoon, in an attack "by three individuals who complained about me wearing a skirt".

She was walking home when one of the three exclaimed "look at that whore in a skirt", Elisabeth told France Bleu Alsace radio.

Two of them then held her, while the third hit her in the face, leaving her with a black eye
, she told France Bleu Alsace radio. The men then fled.

And the (((guy))) above is laughing because he knows what this Islamic enrichment would do to Europe. The mainstream obviously avoids the non-European angle and it's not about wearing skirts here. Those animals complete with Islam have no place in the West. And while we are at it - most Jews either - especially ones that are oppsoed to the core culture and people in Europe. They have a homecountry now and can happily enrich that.
 
ilostabet said:
Reminds me of Walter Duranty, the man who went to the Soviet Union at the height of Stalinism, the forced famines and the political persecution, and saw rather a shining light of freedom and prosperity (and won the Pulitzer prize for it).
Below are a few copy-paste excerpts from Malcolm Muggeridge's The Green Stick. In the last part of the book, he writes about his time in 1932/33 in the USSR, as a correspondent for a British newspaper.



A leg of chicken

"The ceremonial opening of the Dneprostroi Dam, to which all foreign journalists were invited, provided a welcome opportunity to get away from Moscow. A special train was laid on for us, consisting entirely of ancient international wagons-lits, in which we were allotted berths. There was also, of course, a restaurant car. In over-heated carriages, with vodka flowing freely, gossiping and laughing, we rolled southwards, looking vaguely out of the windows at the passing countryside, which gradually, as we progressed, grew less wintry, more sunny and salubrious. For the most part the small stations we rattled through were cleared of people, but sometimes there were some bedraggled looking peasants clustered together on the platform. Noticing one such cluster, a large German correspondent carelessly threw out of the window a leg of chicken he had been gnawing at. There was a concerted move to pick it up. The gesture and the response have stayed with me through the intervening years like stigmata."



On Duranty

"Duranty, a little sharp-witted energetic man, was a much more controversial person; I should say there was more talk about him in Moscow than anyone else, certainly among foreigners. By origin he was an Englishman from Liverpool, which probably means he was Irish; a conclusion supported by his proneness to hint at aristocratic connections and classical learning, of which, I must say, he produced little evidence. One of his legs had been amputated after a train accident, but he was very agile at getting about with an artificial one. His household, where I visited him once or twice, included a Russian woman named Katya, by whom I believe he had a son. I always enjoyed his company; there was something vigorous, vivacious, preposterous, about his unscrupulousness which made his persistent lying somehow absorbing. I suppose no one - not even Louis Fischer - followed the Party Line, every shift and change, as assiduously as he did. In Oumansky’s eyes he was perfect, and was constantly held up to the rest of us as an example of what we should be.
It, of course, suited his material interests thus to write everything the Soviet authorities wanted him to - that collectivisation of agriculture was working well, with no famine conditions anywhere; that the purges were justified, the confessions genuine, and the judicial procedure impeccable. Because of these acquiescent attitudes - so ludicrously false that they were a subject of derision among the other correspondents, and even Podolski had been known to make jokes about them - Duranty never had any trouble getting a visa, or a house, or interviews with whomever he wanted. His subservience to the Party Line was so complete that it was even rumoured that he was being blackmailed by the Soviet authorities. Yet I do not myself think he was just a simple crook; in some strange way, his upholding of the Soviet regime was, besides being materially advantageous, a response to some need of his nature. Not, I hasten to add, because he believed in the Revolution, or in its beneficial consequences to Russia or to mankind - anything like that. Quite the contrary; I think he despised all that sort of apologetics, indulged in by Fischer and still more by Anna Louise Strong, more than anyone.
No, he admired Stalin and the regime precisely because they were so strong and ruthless. ‘I put my money on Stalin,’ was one of his favourite sayings. It was the sheer power generated that appealed to him; he was always remarking on how big Russia was, how numerous Russians were. Thus, for instance, in this last conversation I was ever to have with him, we got on to the subject of the agricultural situation and the famine. He admitted there was an appalling food shortage, if not a famine (something, incidentally, no one could have deduced from his messages to the New York Times, which were in an exactly contrary sense), but, he said, banging the sides of the sofa, remember that you can’t make omelettes without cracking eggs - another favourite saying. They’ll win, he went on; they’re bound to win. If necessary, they’ll harness the peasants to the ploughs, but I tell you they’ll get the harvest in and feed the people that matter. The people that mattered were the men in the Kremlin and all their underlings; the men in the factories and the armed forces; us, too, the elite. The others were just serfs; reserves of the proletariat, as Stalin called them. Some would die, surely, perhaps even quite a lot; but there were enough and to spare in all conscience. It might have been a Burra Sahib talking about the natives.
I had the feeling, listening to this outburst, that in thus justifying Soviet brutality and ruthlessness, Duranty was in some way getting his own back for being small, and losing a leg, and not having the aristocratic lineage and classical education he claimed to have. This is probably, in the end, the only real basis of the appeal of such regimes as Stalin’s, and later Hitler’s; they compensate for weakness and inadequacy. It is also why their particular ideologies - Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao - are, in themselves, of no significance. Duranty was a little browbeaten boy looking up admiringly at a big bully. By the same token, if the New York Times went on all those years giving great prominence to Duranty’s messages, building him and them up when they were so evidently nonsensically untrue, to the point that he came to be accepted as the great Russian expert in America, and played a major part in shaping President Roosevelt’s policies vis-a-vis the USSR - this was not, we may be sure, because the Times was deceived. Rather, because it wanted to be so deceived, and Duranty provided the requisite deception material. Since his time, there have been a whole succession of others fulfilling the same role - in Cuba, in Vietnam, in Latin America. It is an addiction, and in such cases there is never any lack of hands to push in the needle and give the fix. Just as the intelligentsia have been foremost in the struggle to abolish intelligence, so the great organs of capitalism like the New York Times have spared no expense or effort to ensure that capitalism will not survive."



Holodomor

"My journey to Rostov remains in my mind as a nightmare memory. The worn railway compartment, with glasses of tea endlessly served; other passengers coming and going, mostly party officials (who else could afford to travel first-class?), very companionable and amiable and ready to listen to my rudimentary Russian, but shutting up at once if I brought up the subject of what was going on outside. Then, their faces stony and expressionless again. Men in leather coats with briefcases, sucking at cigarettes, clearly used to giving orders and to being treated with deference in the Forestry Department, or the Audit Department, or I daresay in the GPU Department, but that also were unmentionable. The restaurant car, likewise cosy, with meals pleasantly served and plenty of vodka. There, too, the outside pleasantly remote, except for one intrusion; a bearded moujik in a padded coat, very drunk and wild looking, suddenly appeared, shouting out something-some sort of protest, I suppose, but I couldn’t understand what. He was quickly disposed of; frog-marched out, still protesting.
It was tempting not to get down at any stations along the way as I had planned, but just to continue in the train. By comparison with its warmth and snugness, the stations looked very uninviting. I had no contacts, no transport, nowhere to go; the moment one arranged these amenities, one was back in Oumansky’s charge. However, I did break my journey several times, and can never forget what I saw. It was not just a famine. No one, alas, news-gathering about the world in our time can fail to have seen quite a lot of famine. In India, in Berlin, in Africa - people picking over garbage, scrabbling about in rubble, maybe in their desperation cannibalising one another; swollen or skeletal, with huge stomachs suspended between bony arms and ribs, and heads that, while still alive, are already skulls. This particular famine was planned and deliberate; not due to any natural catastrophe like failure of rain, or cyclone, or flooding. An administrative famine brought about by the forced collectivisation of agriculture; an assault on the countryside by party apparatchiks - the very men I’d been chatting so amiably with in the train - supported by strong-arm squads from the military and the police.
As I wrote in The Guardian, in the course of three articles of mine that appeared on 25, 27 and 28 March, 1933: ‘To say that there is famine in some of the most fertile parts of Russia is to say much less than the truth; there is not only famine, but a state of war, a military occupation.’ The articles were held up to follow a series by Voigt on the Terror in the Polish Ukraine, and were run side by side with another series by him on the Nazi Terror, by way, I imagine, of neutralising some of their effect. In them I tried to describe it all - the abandoned villages, the absence of livestock, neglected fields; everywhere famished, frightened people and intimations of coercion, soldiers about the place, and hard-faced men in long overcoats. One particularly remarkable scene I stumbled on by chance at a railway station in the grey early morning; peasants with their hands tied behind them being loaded into cattle trucks at gun-point (this, incidentally, was the nearest I came to being in trouble myself; I was angrily told to make off, which I hurriedly did, fortunately without having to disclose myself as a foreign journalist); all so silent and mysterious and horrible in the half-light, like some macabre ballet.
Reading the articles over again, they seem very inadequate in conveying the horror of it all, which far surpassed just the human misery. Rien de plus dangereux, Taine writes, qu'une idée générale dans des cerveaux étroits et vides. Stalin’s collectivisation of agriculture was just such a general idea in a narrow empty mind, pursued to the uttermost limit, without reference to any other consideration, whether of individual or collective humanity. To be oppressed by an individual tyrant is terrible enough; by an enraged deity, as the Old Testament tells us, even more terrible; but Taine is right when he contends that the worst of all fates is to be oppressed by a general idea. This was the fate of the Russian peasants, as it is, increasingly, the fate of us all in the twentieth century.
As it happened, no other foreign journalist had been into the famine areas in the USSR except under official auspices and supervision, so my account was by way of being exclusive. This brought me no kudos, and many accusations of being a liar, in The Guardian correspondence columns and elsewhere. I had to wait for Khruschev - who surely knew the truth if anyone did, having been himself one of the chief terrorists in the Ukraine - for official confirmation. Indeed, according to him, my account was considerably under-stated. If the matter is a subject of controversy hereafter, a powerful voice on the other side will be Duranty’s, highlighted in the New York Times, insisting on those granaries overflowing with grain, those apple-cheeked dairymaids and plump contented cows, not to mention Shaw and all the other distinguished visitors who testified that there was not, and could not be, a food shortage in the USSR. I doubt if even Khruschev’s testimony, let alone mine, will weigh against such honourable and distinguished witnesses."



Church service

"In Kiev, where I found myself on a Sunday morning, on an impulse I turned into a church where a service was in progress. It was packed tight, but I managed to squeeze myself against a pillar whence I could survey the congregation and look up at the altar. Young and old, peasants and townsmen, parents and children, even a few in uniform - it was a variegated assembly. The bearded priests, swinging their incense, intoning their prayers, seemed very remote and far away. Never before or since have I participated in such worship; the sense conveyed of turning to God in great affliction was overpowering. Though I could not, of course, follow the service, I knew from Klavdia Lvovna little bits of it; for instance, where the congregation say there is no help for them save from God. What intense feeling they put into these words! In their minds, I knew, as in mine, was a picture of those desolate abandoned villages, of the hunger and the hopelessness, of the cattle trucks being loaded with humans in the dawn light. Where were they to turn for help? Not to the Kremlin, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, certainly; nor to the forces of progress and democracy and enlightenment in the West. Plonourable and Right Honourable Members had nothing to offer; Gauche Radicale unforthcoming, free press Duranty’s pulpit. Every possible human agency found wanting. So, only God remained, and to God they turned with a passion, a dedication, a humility, impossible to convey. They took me with them; I felt closer to God then than I ever had before, or am likely to again."



Dostoevsky’s grave

"I left the USSR via Riga, then the capital of an independent Latvia, breaking my journey at Leningrad, where, on an impulse, having some hours to spare, I decided to go and look for Dostoevsky’s grave. It was by no means an easy quest. I found the cemetery where he was buried easily enough, but when I asked where his grave was, no one seemed prepared to give me any information other than pointing vaguely. At last, after much laborious spelling out of the names on tombstones, I did manage to locate it. The grave and the monument had a neglected, untended appearance, which was not really surprising since, following Lenin’s view, the Party Line had pronounced anathema upon Dostoevsky as a reactionary who had rejected and ridiculed the very notion of progress and of Socialism. I wondered if anyone else had come there of late to do him reverence. Anyway, I was glad to take off my hat and stand for a while in silence, honouring his memory in the strange circumstances which had befallen his country - circumstances he had so uncannily prophesied in The Possessed, the book that of all others had been most in my mind during my time in the USSR.
 
Last edited:

Serie A1

Robin
Picture was supposedly not altered - the real source of unfitting mass migration to the west:

View attachment 25447

While that is true and many large terrorist attacks are false flags - this and hundreds of thousands of rapes and attacks are being done by Muslims:





And the (((guy))) above is laughing because he knows what this Islamic enrichment would do to Europe. The mainstream obviously avoids the non-European angle and it's not about wearing skirts here. Those animals complete with Islam have no place in the West. And while we are at it - most Jews either - especially ones that are oppsoed to the core culture and people in Europe. They have a homecountry now and can happily enrich that.

Would do? Muslims have been in Europe in significant numbers since at least the eighth century. In fact, Islam is the only religion in Europe apart from Christianity to enjoy majority- and plurality-followings within entire countries, unless you count (Buddhist) Kalmykia.
 
Would do? Muslims have been in Europe in significant numbers since at least the eighth century. In fact, Islam is the only religion in Europe apart from Christianity to enjoy majority- and plurality-followings within entire countries, unless you count (Buddhist) Kalmykia.

This is the sly double speak I mentioned earlier in this thread. An attempt to distort both reality, history and Truth. Extremely prevalent in the Islamic communities of the West

This member is implying that islam and Christianity have been coexisting for centuries, and that Islam has been part and parcel of European culture because of it

And as such, it rightfully deserves a place in Europe. 'Islam is just as European as Christianity. A native religion of our continent'

The reality is that islam has tried to subjugate Christian Europe since its inception. This time it's no different. They use the money, hospitality and guilt of their hosts to sneak in and as soon as they feel strong enough just take over

The current migrant crisis is just the next chapter in the table of content

@Sitting Bull and @Rob Banks ok, point taken, I'll read the post later
 
Last edited:
1. The point behind my posting the dry facts of Russia's demography was to point out the absurdity of viewing Russia as some kind of ethnic, religious and linguistic monolith. It is anything but. Russia hosts one of the largest Islamic populations in Europe and is home to the continent's only Buddhist-majority republic. Accordingly, native Russians can look White, East Asian, Eurasian, Turkic, Chinese-White...

2. The Russian authorities themselves use this diversity as a source of soft power. For example, during the 2018 FIFA World Cup, they proudly pointed to the fact that Kazan was the first Muslim-majority city to host top-level World Cup matches (the U-17 and U-20 tournaments are a different story).

3. The difference between Christian and Muslim birthrates in Russia is, as you say, generally not that significant. And even in Chechnya, things are changing. However, it is generally recognised that the number of Muslims in Russia is probably consistently underestimated.

LOL, ridiculous population projections from a 'Russian' (American funded) globohomo magazine? Facts bro!

Statistics from the US Department of State and the Russian Federal State Statistics? Facts are wrong bro!

Accordingly, native Russians can look White, East Asian, Eurasian, Turkic, Chinese-White...

Ah yes, a Russian is anno 2020 a brown high cheekbones, slanted eyed Muslim.

Remember what I said in the previous post? Just the same bolshewik destruction of European identities

In Russia there are Russkis and Rossoyanins. Simply stated Rossoyanins are Russian passport holders and Russkis are ethnic Russians

Obviously in the English language the concept of a Russian is tied to both. However, don't start erasing the Russki identity here, there is an cultural, religious and ethinical component to that
 
Top