|
|
|
Europeans, Asians and racial ambiguity: where to draw the lines? And head-off the risk of ambiguity, old and new, becoming a tool of liberal contention. A few days ago Kumiko and I were contesting how this man - Zakirzhan Niyazov - should be designated. She felt that he should be considered “Asian” whereas he appears to me, on balance, to be more of a Caucasoid prototype - that is, he seems to me to be slightly more kindred of The Caucuses and Europe. He probably could fool me as kind of sort of Bulgarian or something like that, but he is actually of the direct genetic lineage which, after coming out of Africa, has been in an area around southern Kazakhstan and its Kyrgyzstan border for 40,000 years. That Spencer Wells (Niyazov’s genetic discoverer) would say that his people are closely related to Europeans does not help much in disambiguation - Wells also considers Europeans to be very closely related to Africans: “Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.” Nevertheless, we might proceed as if he provides operational verifiability enough in his genetic evidence to say that Niyazov’s is a proto-population of both Europeans and East Asians. If one hopes to investigate with rigorous disamiguation just who is European and who is not, Niyazov’s people are: a tight knot, gnarly lot, a gordian knot, or an important “white box” - an area where the details necessary to sort and name elements are unknown to us - choose your metaphor for the challenge. Wells found that following a first wave out of Africa which went down the western coast of India, another wave - specifically, Niyazov’s forebears - came out about 40,000 years ago and went not to Europe through Turkey, or even through the Caucuses, but went straight east, to central Asia where they evolved alone in situ (apparently southern Kazakhsan near Kryzykstan) for about 10,000 years - incubating a primeval population from which sprang Europeans, East Asians and some of India. Coming back to the contention over the ambiguity of this white box then, Kumiko argues that his people and nation belong clearly in “the Asian sphere of influence.” Russians, a White, viz. European people, play insufficient part of this man’s people’s history to assert their designation, how they should “count” as a nation and people. On the other hand, I look at him prima facie and see a tilt toward European. Especially when I look at his father, I see someone who at first blush looks like someone that I would guess to be “Russian.” I would guess that his grandfather was from somewhere around the Caucuses, South Russia or Ukraine (one of the guys in the old Dannon Yogurt commercials about Ukrainian men who live to be well over 100, supposedly because they eat yogurt): Granted that there is a slight epicanthic fold in Niyasov, his father and grandfather, but many Europeans have that degree of an epicanthic fold, including Germans, English and in fact, some people of most all European nations. Europeans seem less perturbed and more familiar with these ambiguites than White Americans, but I digress. How do we handle these ambiguties? When confronted with ambiguities of Europeans mixed with other Europeans and living in other European nations my first instinct is to look for means of damage control to native populations; conflict resolution to stave off overcompensation and destructive, incorrect puritanism in how they look at ambiguous Europeans. Therefore, in order to reduce anxiety as such, I seek to have their difference honestly recognized while recommending their right to abode being limited to safe, minimal numbers in porportion to the purer native stock. In native populations that have been more mixed for a while, I would imagine that is their “native type.” It would be a matter of arriving at a more complex formula of what range and ratios comprise the natives. Naturally, those populations which were ambiguous from the start, in the sense of being a “primordial stew”, phylogenetic forebears to different kinds, they too would have native status to their nation. My instinct thus, is to resolve matters of racial ambiguity by national designations and assignment. For those of us more serious minded, however, this is far from an arbitrary matter or flight of imagination. While these ambiguities do require at least a modicum of social constructing, real lives, ancient human and natural ecologies are at stake. If Niyazov’s people are a primeval type which has both European and Asian elements and particularly as they are evolved in that area then that is a very powerful warrant as to their sovereign nation in consradistinction to regional imperialism, whether European or Asian. Sorting out Niyazov’s people may not easily solve problems of the geopopolitical chessboard, but it should help greatly in clarifying just what and who is in dispute.
Freedom for Tibet! er, Kyrgyzstan, er Southern Kazakhstan, er proto- Europeans, er proto-Asians… Asians… East Asians.. ..there you have it, a problem for the would-be nationalist solution seems to arise within the framework of geopolitics. Our case in point, regarding the European sphere of influence, viz. what is a nation of European people and therefore under its allied interests as opposed to an Asian nation and arguably thus, under its allied interests, closer concern and protection. I confess to not being attuned to the need to fight on these lines of “Asian vs European” spheres of interest, but then I am not preoccupied with the relation of populations, their requirements and resource scarcity. Still, it is a practical concern and we are all pragmatists to some exent - because we have to be. Thus, despite mine and GW’s more idealistic view, interested as we are in populations in relation to territory and habitats, human ecology and warrant, trying to sort out nations on genetic lines that are ambigously tangled can still give rise to contention and thus the requirement for negotiation on radical pragmatic grounds of “how things count” - as in the case of Niyazov, which requires the negotiation and social construction of our alliances as native nationalists. The matter of negotiation that is contested here again: Kumiko sees Niyazov, his father and grandfather as “Asian” and a clear line between them and Europeans. Whereas I see them as in an ambiguous continuum with Europeans. While such ambiguites don’t really surprise me, I was a little surprised (because I was not looking for it) to see him looking (to me) slightly more European than oriental (Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian). But whatever is most characteristic of Niyazov’s type, I have a gut reaction to preserve him and his, with national sovereignty, the way that a zoologist would seek to preserve a precious species. I also believe that there is a kindredness in my visceral response - I sense Europeanness in this man that should be protected by necessary means, including national sovereignty. It seems that Kumiko has a similar kindredness and wish for nationalism as a means to protect native populations, including his; but perhaps we both have a confimation bias - hers moving through the pragmatics of geopolitics and Asian regionalism while mine is filtered through a Eurocentric perspective. From her perspective, because he has traditionaly been considered “Asian” means that his nation belongs in closer alliance with China, Japan, Korea, India etc. In the first clues of the genetic evidence, I am inclined to say, “not so fast”.... there may be more connection to Europe in Asia than is being given its due by the traditional designation of “Asia” bereft of genetic data. Not that a people’s co-evolution in a particular land is a thousand percent incontestable warrant, but it is strong. Even so, if ideally proposing the sovereignty of ambiguous nations to harbor primordial types, questions and contentions can arise to their hazard, questions conveniently at the disposal of regionalist, internationalist and neoliberal forces. These poltical contentions seem to me to require more, not less attention to sorting out issues of genetic, racial ambiguity and native national alliances in order to establish warranted assertabilty. Let us attend to sorting out and negotiating with peoples how it is that they count. .......................... For the ambiguity of evolutionary commonality, race is still a social construct the lines of which need to be negotiated (for the sake of accountability to human ecological sanity, if nothing else). But again, the case of historicaly ambiguous peoples is not as challenging as the case of negotiating lines with those recently mixed or would-be mixers. Their concept does not abide such rigorous genetic criteria, if abiding a concept of race at all; or for that matter, a physical criteria at all. Their imagination can combine with the fact that all human races can interbreed, add to that some Darwinist tropes and they have some powerfully destructive arguments on their side. Far more problematic then are national designations as a means of protection from recently mixed peoples, or those who would askew accountability to historical genetic categories, who would just as soon mix, or who are themselves racially mixed as their parents might have “chosen” a form, prefering the fancy of their imaginative choice over their ancient human ecology. Dealing with the products of imagination requires a new designation and requires a re-negotiation and defense strategy for its new and “freely chosen” ambiguity. This has one soon after asking the question of more recenty mixed types: Create a nation for their ambiguities? Would that not provide a potential breeding-ground, haven and springboard of liberal contention and dissolution of specific native forms? If not new virulent types, a mulatto supremacism, a kind of mixed and venal cyborg, perhaps a hybrid even worse than Jews? Comments:2
Posted by Lenin's ambiguity on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 05:38 | # Lenin definitely presents a challenge to categorization. However, his ambiguity is the result of later mixture, not an ambigous primordial type, the nature of which is disputed. He was part Kalymyk and Chuvash or Mordvin; his step mother was at least half Jewish and apparently influenced Lenin’s outlook - particularly in indifference toward Christianity.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin
3
Posted by Mick Lately on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:16 | # Signs of resistance in Ireland: And any resistance will meet with resistance. Note the phenotype in the profile of Jewess Ronit Lentin in one of the pictures. 4
Posted by Ronit Lentin on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:51 | #
Launch of controversial right wing political party descends into chaos in Dublin
5
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 03:37 | #
That would go a long way toward explaining why Vladimir Lenin was strongly opposed to the trend of ‘Great Russian Chauvinism’ that permeated the thoughts of Russian communists, and why he sought to stamp it out. Lenin was aware, given that he was of Siberian origin, that the Russian Empire had come into being through rampant oppression meted out toward non-Russians within the controlled territories, and this is why he sought to break it up as much as he possibly could. This is why he came down on the opposite side from the Russians and the Jews. For example, Rosa Luxembourg did not share Lenin’s views, she viewed national liberation struggles as ‘outmoded’, whereas Lenin saw national liberation for ethnic minorities as an essential feature of his ideology. In the final months of his life, Lenin had become aware that Stalin was a ‘Great Russian Chauvinist’ and that he wanted to become the leader of the Soviet Union. This worried Lenin for obvious reasons. During the 9th Party Conference of the Communist Party, Vladimir Lenin was alarmed at the fact that 70% of the Communist Party was Russian, and was said to have given the warning, “scratch some communists and you will discover they are Great Russian Chauvinists beneath the skin”. However, Lenin only governed the Soviet Union for about 3 years before he died, and was then replaced by Joseph Stalin. ‘Great Russian Chauvinism’—Russian Slav institutional supremacism in concert with Jews—then immediately returned to absolute prominence and the Soviet Union set about destroying the livelihoods of all non-Russian peoples within its borders, and assassinating tribal leaders everywhere. So Vladimir Lenin was bad, but he was nowhere near as bad as Joseph Stalin and his successors. This inspired the Communist Party of China to say after the demise of the USSR in 1991:
These accusations are of course 100% true. In short, ‘good riddance to bad rubbish’. 6
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:28 | # Kumiko, you make some very good points about Lenin, his promotion of an idea of confederated ethnie’s (national liberation) as opposed to Stalin’s and the Jewish idea, Luxembourg’s idea, of absorbing all the various nations of peoples around. But was Stalin characteristically “Slavic” or was he more a “Georgian”, of haplogroup G, that crazy, volatile and sometimes ultra violent stuff mutated in the Caucuses? And wasn’t getting the Jews out of power a good thing? After all, they were heavily responsible for the anti-Russian blood bath at the onset and well into Stalin’s reign (granted, of terror). Weren’t the Jews largely involved with setting up the framework of terror that Stalin, the Georgian, moved into? It is good to introduce some balance, but you seem to be going soft on Jews .
7
Posted by Franklin Ryckaert on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:09 | # You can never suppress nationalism by whatever “internationalist” ideology. That was true in the Soviet Union, it is also true in China. How are the Chinese behaving towards the Tibetans and the Uyghurs? Well, they are flooding their countries with ethnic Chinese in order to make them minorities in their own countries and their nationalist aspirations are harshly suppressed. I think the indigenous peoples of Siberia are better off with the rule of a majority of Slavic Russians than they ever would be under the boots of imperialist Chinese or Japanese. 8
Posted by Mick Lately on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:20 | # The summer of rage and Jade Helm 15 merging and melding in a sickening swirl and swill: Data-driven U.S.A. is dreideling out of control, nobody knows what’s real or a false flag anymore: 9
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:27 | #
Yes. Despite everything, Lenin was very pointed in trying to prevent Stalin’s ideas on this particular issue from coming to manifestation. During the Georgian civil war, on March 03 1921, Lenin wrote to Ordzhonikidze (who would later be turned upon and purged by Stalin anyway) and Stalin, telling them to make a coalition with the Georgian intelligentsia and the small traders, which they generally seem to have ignored, because they went ahead and did whatever they felt like anyway. So Stalin was willing to destroy Georgia for the sake of carrying on the chauvinist agenda, and that I suppose could be interpreted as a sign of just how committed to it he was, since he was okay with brutalising the very country that he came from. After that, the communists addressed the question of constitutional arrangement of the territories. In 1922, Stalin proposed that Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, would be dissolved as nations entirely. He did this in a resolution called “On the Relations between the RSFSR and the Independent Republics”. This was a transparent and frontally blatant Russification attempt it would seem, one which entirely contradicted the idea that Lenin and Stalin had developed jointly after 1913 that had been known as the ‘Affirmative Action Empire’. Stalin’s ‘justification’ was that it would be a way to make sure that counter-revolutionary forces would be held in check by the GPU of the RSFSR. The GPU was operating out of Moscow, meaning that he was essentially saying that these country would be ruled from Moscow and would have no borders of their own. Lenin strongly opposed this, but by now he was very ill. His proposal to try to mitigate it was to propose the creation of the “USSR”, in which all the republics would be constitutionally equal participants. This was not a very comprehensive mitigation, and it was more difficult for him because Stalin began to deny him access to information. Stalin then tried to achieve the same chauvinistic results by the back door, since then he decided that he wanted to create a Transcaucasian Republic which would be led by people who held Great Russian views again. This time the Georgian Communist Party officials resigned in protest, and were then replaced with precisely the kind of people who would be willing to go along with it. Lenin was upset. He writes in December 1922:
A very comprehensive condemnation. Of course, Lenin knows full well that neither Stalin nor Dzerzhinsky are Russians by blood, since he would know that Stalin was blatantly a Georgian and he might even be aware that Dzerzhinsky was a Jew. However, Lenin knows that 70% of the Communist Party is Russian and that a general disposition of Great Russian Chauvinism is manifesting and that Stalin and Dzerzhinsky are acting as willing and deliberate spearheads of that tendency. Lenin is showing in this letter—the last letter he was to write before his death—that he is afraid that their actions will make him, and his ideological project, look disreputable and bad in the eyes of the people of Asian descent. Because Lenin is trying to make Asian peoples feel comfortable with his project and make them feel non-threatened by it. Stalin and Dzerzhinsky knew that Lenin’s anger and the fact that he had written it into a letter could be very bad for their prospects of leadership. Hence, they took Lenin’s letter and hid it until 1956, when it was too late to make a difference.
I think he was of course fully a Georgian, but that he was ‘acting as though a Russian’.
Yes, I’m sure they were. I hadn’t said otherwise, I simply take for granted that you know I agree with the accuracy of that history, and that you know that I know of it.
I think that it’s a misinterpretation by you. I was only giving this example to show that Lenin’s ancestry provided the prism through which he viewed the situation, because his non-Russian origin would have made him especially attuned to the adverse situations that faced the original inhabitants of the lands that the Russian Empire had conquered. So I’m only saying that Lenin was seeing the situation through a prism shaped by his ethnic genetic interests and the understanding that he would have gained from that, and that it is an example of how that can manifest in situations that it is not traditionally thought to be present in. 10
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:41 | #
This much we agree on.
Naturally I don’t agree with what the Chinese are doing in Tibet, that is a serious error they are committing, and it will also backfire on them later. Regarding the Uyghurs, they chose to wage Jihad, and were simply met with a hard response, and so that is a more complex issue.
I can’t imagine why you’d believe that, given the history of Siberia, since I’m sure you would know what has happened to them as a result, and how their populations were viciously attacked by Russians again and again. Also, I don’t see how this is some kind of false choice either-or question, given that I never suggested that Japan or China should be putting ‘boots’ on anyone in Siberia. In fact, the peoples of Siberia should be self-governing, and they should be assisted to this end by those East Asian nations that have autonomy. 11
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:54 | #
“Affirmative Action”.... where have I heard that before? “Affirmtive Action Empire”...quite descriptive of Neo-Marxist application in The U.S.
..that, as opposed to “affirative action” Jewish American style, which means White hiring prerogative and discretion is completely denied and they must hire blacks, other non-Whites, etc.
12
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:36 | # But I am not quite so charitably disposed to Lenin. You quote:
It is convenient and egregious rhetoric on the part of Lenin to say that “Dzerzhinsky distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind”, as if Dzerzhinsky was merely imitating what the Russians would want in their nationalism. Dzerzhinsky, an egregious man, a half Jew and half Pole, was infamous. He was, incidentally, condered by Pilsudski to be “the” arch enemy. One cannot propose him to White naionalists as “a Russian.” Not even an imitation. Dzerzhinsky was not merely doing an imitation of Russian chauvinsim for any reason but to co-opt it, and doing his best to mislead the 70 percent of the Russians in the communist party to his Jewish aims. He was a Jew, and that accounts for his cold indifference to the spilling of Russian and Georgian blood by the millions. Just as Lenin not being a Russian explains his malice toward Russians and their rule. Lenin does not mention Jews as Jews because he shares their malace as an ethnic minority toward the Russian majority and its rule. He sees Jews as too valuable a partner in a coalition of minorities to name them as a source of mass murder.
These two non Russians were riding the wave of Russian nationalism along with minority and lower class grievance in order to co-opt its power. At least Lenin recognizes Stalin to be a Georgian, not exaclty a Russian.
Again, I strongly disagee. At a minimum, Dzerzhinsky and his fellow Jews would be distorting Russian nationalism and imperialism beyond Russian interests because they didn’t care if Russians had the blood of homocide on their Russian hands nor the risk of a suicidal mission on their hands. Thus, they were not, as Lenin portrays them, acting as “true Russians.” They were acting in a Jewish perverted version. In a word, they would not care about Russians. In the case of Stalin, the fact that he would have no problem killing fellow Georgians is entirely consistent with his personality. His “Russian Chauvinism” was really just a vehicle for power, same as with Jews. But in Stalin’s case, he comes from an earlier branch of the same violent and aggressive stock from which emerged Jews. Thus, his destructive actions stem not as much from his world view as from his violently disposed genetic make-up. A violent proclivity that could be directed in any which way. It is only convenient rhetoric (and with hindsite, absurd rhetoric) by Lenin that he would call Dzerzhinsky and Stalin Russian chauvinists who are acting in Russian interests. Neither of them were anything of the kind. The 70 percent Russians of the communist party got hoodwinked and swept up in wishful thinking. That is not to say that the Russians are a wholly innocent people - who is, except the Germans of course (wink).
I don’t doubt that he was concerned to defend Asian nationals and other regional nations on the margins of Russia, but he was also kissing up to the Jews, who, unlike other groups, had neither claim to the area nor a shared vested interest with its native peoples, other than overthrowing the Russians. Lenin was either naive or disingenous as to what could and would happen through coalition with Jews beyond that. That he sees Dzerzhinsky and Stalin as “acting Russian” by their craven uncaring for Georgians and Belarusians goes to show that something is very wrong in Lenin’s assessment. He was so intent on taking the Russians down, in depicting the Russians as the sole and inherently bad people, that he would even say that the most homocidal Jews, acting wth characteristic Jewish malevolence, were acting “Russian.” I said.. But was Stalin characteristically “Slavic” or was he more a “Georgian”, of haplogroup G, that crazy, volatile and sometimes ultra violent stuff mutated in the Caucuses?
It seems he played Russian nationalism as means to power and gave vent to a violent predisopotion by its pretext.
I don’t think that I misunderstand. However, I do see the value in looking at things from Lenin’s perspective and seeing grievances that he had on behalf of surounding and subsumed minority nations as valid.
13
Posted by Dzerzhinsky / Selman Rufin on Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:59 | # Since the last time I looked into his background, it has admittedly become more difficult to find sources avowing Dzierznski’s Jewish background. While the sources I quote follow plausible arguments, they are almost as prejudicially inclined to believe that Dzerzhinsky was Jewish as I am. There were then, as there are now, obvious reasons for Jewish heritage to be unacknowledged - especially in the case of someone like Dzierżyński. That makes the matter of tracing his ethnicity more difficult. While the patterns of behavior strike me as quite Jewish, the sources need much more corroboration.
Dzerzhinsky’s strident postion, both ultraviolent toward Slavs and in no way displaying sympathy for Polish nationalism, does tend to lend weight to the suspicion that this man was not Polish or Slavic in his genetic bias. 14
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sat, 25 Jul 2015 03:27 | # Daniel, I feel like you are arguing against an argument that I haven’t really made. I’m not trying to say that Dzerzhinsky ‘was not a Jew’, obviously he was a Jew which is why I named him as one, and obviously Stalin was a Georgian, which is why I’ve named him as one. But it seems like you are trying to de-emphasise the fact that their actions are an exponent attached to the result of a very Russian base. These are the questions that appear immediately: Who were Stalin and Dzerzhinsky working for? Whose uniforms were they wearing? Whose language were they speaking? Which ideological and repressive state apparatus were they making decisions within the framework of? Which country’s geostrategic interests were they making decisions on behalf of? What was the demographic composition of the party that they were a member of? What was the racial nature of the policy preferences that characterised the institutional and bureaucratic inertia of the state apparatus which they had inherited after the close of the First World War? The answer to all those questions is ‘Russia’ and ‘Russians’. It’s one of those things where it should be impossible to say otherwise. The British Empire also would have known this quite well, because they had willing non-British people working for them as well. For example, Britain had people in Azerbaijan who were aligned to British interests who they deliberately supported after the Russian White Army retreated in January 1920. Obviously the government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was not white British people, they were people who looked like the person in the image I’ve embedded in the right-hand side of this post. But can anyone reasonably argue—taking the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic as a test case—that when the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic proceeded to attack people in Karabakh to put down the Armenian rebellion there and keep the territory integrated with its territory, that this was ‘not a British interest because Britons would have used less brutal tactics if they had done it themselves with white British commanders’? No, no one would make that argument. It would be clear as day that what was happening was the result of a British Imperial interest in trying to win the rivalry against Russia over the flow of oil in the Caspian Basin on the world-system level and the Azeri conflict over territory in Karabakh (half the companies that produced the oil drilling machines, machine tools, and pipelines were Armenian, and half the oil services workshops were Armenian) on the regional level, two things which were not fully in alignment in terms of methods but which had meshed with each other. It was both top down, and also bottom up. There is interaction between the two levels. However, what is happening on the world-system level, has the initiative and shapes the range of options available to individual actors within the system. So what was happening in that example was both British and Azeri. It was not merely one or the other, it was both. It’s clear that, using this example, Russia and Britain had competing interests in Azerbaijan, and that any brutality carried out by the Azeris against the Armenians to try to prevent them from forming a breakaway country, was an Azeri exponent of ethnically-motivated violence attached to a British interest. By the same logic, when the Russians attacked Azerbaijan and defeated all of the above mentioned people, so that Russians could suppress everything (essentially a Russian reconquest of Azerbaijan is what it was) and take everything for themselves, and then you have Dzerzhinsky and Stalin prancing around trying to suggest to people that all the national borders should be removed two years later, what would that be called? Russian interests to the violent exponent—which is to say ‘raised to the power’—of a Georgian (Stalin and Ordzhonikidze) and a Jew (Dzerzhinsky). Because that’s what it is. But it’s almost as though you don’t want to say that the base of all those actions is Russian. Why? It seems strange to me how much resistance this notion is being met with. Keep in mind, this is not a moral issue. It doesn’t involve notions of ‘innocence’ or ‘guilt’, or even ‘rights’. It’s just a description of the situation as it was, the description of a social tendency and the description of a strategic threat emanating from Russia. 15
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:16 | #
Dzierzinski’s ideology and actions were (Jewish) and entirely alien from Russian interests in their origin and intent, yes. The Russian state was just a horse for him to ride and use in whatever which way. In the case of Stalin, his motive would still be alien, only similar to Jewishness as he is of the same haplogroup area (but farther back, before phylogenetic branching) and using a cartoon version of “Russified” Marxism as an excuse to wield it’s power - i.e., in the case of Stalin, I believe the issue was more desire for personal power than Jewish interests or authentic Russian interests. To that end Stalin would have no problem sacrificing Russians, he would even kill his family or anybody else.
Therefore, uniforms and language were just stealth and means to their ends, but not representative of their true allegience.
Jewish.
Russia was a proxy “government” for the Jews to stear toward their interests. In Stalin, as in the case of Christianity, they created a Frankenstein.
That doesn’t matter, they are used to being an alien minority and then using coalitions, “unions” against the host power and against eachother.
It was probably a situation of late feudalism, and mid industrialism, where nobility and industrialists were represented by Euroean folks existing alongside an uneasy relation of Jews, who were resented for being non-Christian aliens, operating as middlemen, money collectors and so on; more, as they could not own land or be represented in political power, they latched onto an ideology which would allow them to form coallitions as “union” representatives of “other exploited” groups. The appearance was to correct the injustice of Russian racial policy preferences, but there was no concern for Russian interests in this replacement ideology (it was supposedly “a-racial”); in which they would not really create a nascent polycentrism of unions, but centralize all power against Russians and to themselves, only trusting themselves. Therefore, Stalin would have rode a wave of reaction to that virulent Jewish usupration and anti Russianness and overcorrected (in order to use that force - “mother Russia” and so on). They tried to deal with Stalin but he turned out to be more virulent than they, and merely took the centralization of power to himself. Yes, Stalin’s was a distorted and perverted cartoon represention of Russian interests.
I think not. There were structures, you can say bad, obsolete structures that the Jews and others were reacting to, but the replacement ideology was Jewish in its manifestation and because it did not have Russian interests in mind that probably explains some the overcompensation that you see, which Stalin commandeered. The proper homeostasis mechanism was not in the hands of those who cared about Russians as a human ecological system. Nor is it in the hands of Whites in other nations of Europe, the Americas, Australia, SA
...a logic of geopolitical interests in securing resources for a nation, I presume. ..and you are presumably talking about the old 18th century notion in which British, Germans, Russians ect would pursue necessary resources through military conquest - part of the dubious, extant structure that I was acknowledging…which you seem to want to say that Russians are particularly guilty of.
No, it is Jewish because there is a qualitative diffference in means and ends of achieving Russian intererests. The means would be more reckless with Russian and foreign blood. The ends would be Jewish or Stalin’s idiosyncracy.
Because you are not yet fully appreciating what Jewish crypsis and virulence does. ..how it can blend with and influence a people. We might need to get you some new contacts so that you can see the color of Jews and their difference….then the difference that they make. It’s not that a Russian state and people wouldn’t have geopolitical interests.. Not that historically, especially, they couldn’t have been part of militaristic atrocities But the would-be homeostatic correction of those overextensions, those imperialist aggressions can and have at times been taken out of Russian hands.. ..through a Jewish version of “correcting” the Czar and his power, with a coalition of minority unions.. And as those interests are commandeered by Jews or someone similarly poison (like Stalin), again, there is a qualitative change in the means and the ultimate aims of those interests ... And it isn’t Russian. Though it will provoke a violent Russian reaction.. ...and as it is not accountable to Russians it does not concern itself as much with blowback…rather would it have been more inclined to use Russians, Russian military etc, to bully other people and not care about putting them in line for retaliation.
16
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:11 | # On the globe of my childhood, I was always intrigued by a series of massive bodies of water inland in Western Asia - the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and what was called on my globe, “The Ural Sea.” What is more commonly known as “The Aral Sea” was suddenly all but gone one day when I took a look at the map of that area again. In days to come, it will make for an interesting point of departure on the topic where East meets West. In this case where the ancient silk road and a sea millions of years old was considered by some Soviet planners to be “nature’s mistake”, which needed to make way for a new “cotton road.” Its waters once replete with life to feed and employ local populations was inefficiently diverted to irrigate cotton farms, where those local populations were sent to be slave labor; and the sea that once sustained them and their now destitute, desert communities, turned into carcenogenic, windswept sand. Cotton and the Disappearance of the Aral Sea
17
Posted by Humans out of Africa sooner than thought on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:16 | #
18
Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:43 | #
I will never agree to that. I think that the Jews and the Russians went hand in hand and that they are both my enemies, and I explained why. This whole thread really is just like some kind of thread that is designed to get out ahead of the curve and provide various forms of cover for Russians, but at the end of the day, my position is—and remains—that there is no ambiguity, and that Russia is a clear enemy to me. What do we do with enemies? We fight against them. White Russians are occupying land that we don’t want them to occupy, and they have influence in places that we don’t want them to have it. When I think about it, the whole argument here has really been incredible. Everyone knows what a white person is, and everyone knows what an Asian is. But suddenly when the aim is to avoid conflict and allow Russians to do as they please and escape being seen as responsible, the notion of ‘racial ambiguity’ comes into existence. The Russians themselves certainly didn’t find any ambiguity between their own identity and that of the Siberians—for example—when they tried to wage a war of extermination against them. That certainly was not ambiguous in any sense.
None of this is ambiguous. If anyone thinks that my assertion of a hard line is unacceptably racist, then so be it. But I won’t let people whitewash the actual fact that Russia’s neighbours, and the captive populations within the eastern and southern part of ‘Russia’, are not white, and should not be forced to adopt a white identity. Russia should be fought against and opposed by every method until the Russian state is compelled to abandon its colonies, or until the Russian Federation structurally collapses. It didn’t end when the USSR collapsed. From my perspective it is not over until it’s over. 19
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 16 Oct 2015 02:28 | # Dzierzinski’s ideology and actions were (Jewish) and entirely alien from Russian interests in their origin and intent, yes. OK, this was a bit overstated. I would now rephrase it thus: Dzierzinski’s ideology and actions were Jewish, and alien from Russian interests in their origin and intent, yes… but let me explain. In the first instance I said said “entirely” alien, because you were not making this distinction so I saw the need to underscore a difference that makes a difference…but that was an overstatement in some respects, because he, as parasite, would get into the psyche of the worst of Russian hosts, the megalomaniacs, to mimic and exaggerate any imperialistic tendencies, designs, power, aggrandizement and genocidal propensities of Russia/ns in order to commandeer their nation to take advantage of whatever hubris existed to be exploited and utilized ultimately for Jews to control vast power and territories. Were Russians entirely innocent? Of course not. But if there was a light (as opposed to a Dark) side of Russian character, which could have functioned in a more reasoned ethno-nationalist way, including with neighbors, that would have been significantly overridden by the parasite. That is because there is another aspect in which Dzierzinski was entirely alien in ideology, actions, origin and intent from Russian interests: key evidence is in the deracinating ideology; and a key expression of the entire alienness would be the willingness to expend millions upon millions of Russian lives to achieve those ends once the Russian state was commandeered with a deracinating ideology; and also to risk Russian lives in the action of imperialist over-extension and in creating enemies - of Russians - all around, where they might have otherwise been able to live as a cooperative ethnostate of native Russians within a more modest territory. So, when you say
You do compel me to revise the aspect which was overstated; but you, yourself are overstating the sameness of Russians and Jews. There may be some overlap of interests among the worst of Russian leaders, patterns and territorial dispute, but there is an exponential function to the Jewish virus which turns hubris virulent in terms of uncaring and violence of native peoples - both host and neighbor. You are so blinded by understandable outrage by the combined results of whatever native Russian hubris and Jewish exponentiation as to not want to be hoodwinked again and not let them get away with it - understandable - but in that vigilance you are not making key distinctions to your audience - distinctions which you must make more clear if you want to gain WN alliance. E.g. that you would be willing to accept a more modestly sized native Russian ethnostate. That could be in the interest of Asia, Russia and Europe as they could then potentially coordinate their interests enough to turn attention to mutual defense against Middle-Eastern and African population burdens, impositions and incursions. In fact, you are so vigilant “that Russia not get away with it” that you entirely missed the point of this thread, thinking that I am trying to put one over on you on behalf of Russians:
The purpose of the thread was to address the issue of racial ambiguity; it provides an interesting theoretical problem often of relevant concern when trying to draw racial taxonomies. It just so happens that Zakirzhan Niyazov provided an excellent example. While I do argue that he is ambiguous, it was never my intent to say that he or his nation should be controlled by Russia. Ethno-nationalist sovereignty and self determination is a central rule to Majorityrights platform. You have an opportunity to make an ethno-nationalist argument that is more reasonable than your argument in this presentation. You could likely gain large cooperation from WN by approaching them not by saying “Russia is the enemy” but by saying that international ethnonationalist relations could work much better if what now constitutes Russia could break up into sovereign states, including independent nations in the east and south for people more characteristically Asian than Russian. Still, there could be some pockets of city states to the east for the handful of Russian cities that are above 500,000 in the east and there could perhaps be some Asian city states in the more Russian west. This would be better for White nationalism as it may satisfy Asia; be a part of a deal to not only have non-hostile relations with Russia; but not unreasonably seek and ask for hostile relations between Europe and Russia; but rather turn attention to cooperation against middle Eastern and African population incursions into Europe and Asia. Next, you say:
No, the line is not always perfectly clear; and that is theoretically interesting.
Well, I am frankly annoyed by this, because not only do you propose to know my aim, but you are totally wrong. My aim has nothing to do with escaping or absolving responsibility. A furtive point is to make sure to place responsibility and ethno-nationalist sovereignty where it belongs (there are two extremes - Jewish aims had/have no relation to Russian aims - which I concede to have overstated - but you overstated to say that they are identical). Still, that was only a leitmotif and one example to my true aim, which was to raise what was to me the theoretically interesting issue of how to deal with the sometimes blurry line between racial categories; and what implication that has for theory and practice. Next, you go on to say:
I didn’t say that there were no cases where ambiguity is not a significant factor, where the differences are clear - that is most often the case.
Yes, there are some ambiguities, but you don’t want to see them because you incorrectly think I am trying to put-one over-on you on behalf of Russians and that there are not ways that you can achieve all you want through cooperation with WN - whereas it is indeed possible to achieve all you want. If you don’t alienate those who would like to cooperate with you. It is said that NS Germany has a similar problem for having been betrayed, tricked, kicked when they were down, so that they became “puritans”... it became doubly and triply hard to trust. You say…
Whatever they are, I am not saying that they should be under Russian control, they should be ethno-nationally sovereign states. I suppose where to divide regional cooperation might be more at issue..but there is probably a way to work that out as well. 20
Posted by Asian ambiguous weight on shoulders on Sat, 24 Oct 2015 08:05 | # The DO‘s lead singer, Olivia Merilahti, provides an example of racial ambiguity: Asian/European - which?
21
Posted by Bill Clinton: "We're all mixed-race" on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 00:27 | # In a statement utterly typical of Bill Clinton, he parrots Spencer Wells’ line that “we are all Africans” underneath our skin: no significant mutations occurred in context and for meaningful, protracted spans of time outside of Africa -
24
Posted by Of primordial Eurasian or meeting again in Irgisli on Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:05 | # It is a question whether people here are directly of the aboriginal pre-EuroAsian peoples, or if they are meeting again here in Irgisli.
26
Posted by Marina Popovich on Sun, 17 Dec 2017 15:45 | #
As a 14 year old, when she tried to join a flying club, she was rejected for being too short. 27
Posted by Origin of The Turks on Tue, 05 Mar 2019 05:35 | # Interesting discussion of the origin of the Turks, apparently way out in Asia, just south east of Lake Baikal; and in the Altai Mountains, same place of origin as Amerindians. 28
Posted by The Etruscans on Thu, 07 Mar 2019 08:55 | # The Etruscans: Ancestors of Ancient Rome (Ancient Civilisation Documentary) Post a comment:
Next entry: The logic of capitalism; the unemployed and the superfluous
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Sven on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:06 | #
A photo of Lenin would be cool.