Posted on 04/28/2022 8:51:44 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
You make two interesting hyperbolic points:
1) Yes, and Luxembourg could rule the world today if it possessed Star Trek-type technology.
2) Today, demography is destiny. Demography is upstream from culture which is upstream from politics which is upstream from “boots on the ground.”
You seem to ignore your first point when making the 2nd point. Countries have come to dominate other countries over the Columbian Exchange and even before that, by way of having superior technology. The Vikings landed on America but got kicked out by the Little Ice Age and hostile locals, even though the Vikings had faster ships. 500 years later, Europeans with fast, big ships arrived again, but this time they had gunpowder and blew the frack out of stone age tribes all across the Americas and even in Asia & Africa.
Guns were the Star Trek level technical dominance for 500 years, and now that every country has guns, the next level is stealth, cheap Precision Guided Munitions, and Nukes.
So to finish up your point number 2, Demography is upstream from culture which is upstream from politics which is upstream from “boots on the ground” which is upstream from superior technology.
What Russia wants is meaningless.
The world is full of outcomes not desires.
All those countries named had advantages over the people they defeated.
Russia has no advantages. They simply have the global nuclear war card.
01010111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101100 01101111 01110011 00100000 01101101 01101001 01110100 00100000 01100101 01110101 01100011 01101000 00100000 01110110 01100101 01110010 01100100 01100001 01101101 01101101 01110100 01100101 01101110 00100000 01000100 01100101 01110101 01110100 01110011 01100011 01101000 01100101 01101110 00111111 00100000 01010111 01100001 01110010 01110101 01101101 00100000 01111010 01110101 01101101 00100000 01010100 01100101 01110101 01100110 01100101 01101100 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110011 01110100 01100101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100100 01110101 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100101 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110010 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 01100101 01110010 01100101 01101110 00100000 01010011 01110000 01110010 01100001 01100011 01101000 01100101 00101100 00100000 01101011 01100001 01101110 01101110 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100100 01110101 00100000 01101110 01101001 01100011 01101000 01110100 00100000 01100101 01101001 01101110 01100110 01100001 01100011 01101000 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110010 01101101 01100001 01101100 01100101 01101101 00100000 01000101 01101110 01100111 01101100 01101001 01110011 01100011 01101000 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110011 01110100 01100101 01101110 00111111 00001101 00001010
http://www.paulschou.com/tools/xlate/
They’re being ridiculous.
That post is full of total BS you just made up.
Yup, and it was Bob Dole who told us we needed to make a choice “between the main stream, and the extreme”. Trump came along 20 years later and WON with Buchanan’s AmericaFirst message [for the most part] while Bob dole LOST.
Trump wrote a children’s book called “Winners Aren’t Losers” — Trump WON and Dole LOST. What’s main stream now, Bob?
Ya beat me to it. GMTA.
By demographics do you mean the number of people purely?
Or are you including the quality, education and productivity of the people in your equation?
This aphorism (about "demographics being upstream from culture," etc.) is NOT FROM ME.
This aphorism (or variations of it - I may not have even quoted it correctly!) is very familiar to people (like Victor Davis Hanson, Douglas Murray, etc.) who have thought deep thoughts about - not the SURFACE of daily politics, but rather about the ultimate causes (as opposed to proximal ones), underlying dynamics, and long-term trends.
Futurologists, outspoken political commentators willing to have calumny heaped upon them, etc. generally accept this statement.
This aphorism is frequently cited by people who agree with Enoch Powell's thesis about immigration and the "suicide of the West."
Now, to answer your question:
Fortunately, when the demographics are as EXTREME as they are now, it's not necessary to factor in "quality," etc. Rather, the SHEER numbers trump EVERYTHING ELSE.
Actually, when it comes to First World countries eliminating their borders, it's the LOW QUALITY of the rising demographics that gives cause for concern. In other words: If those groups who are outbreeding us were not only more fecund, but also more intelligent, educated, cultivated, etc. - conservatives would have nothing to fear, and nothing to discuss!
Rather, it's only because those groups are both fecund AND more inclined to criminality, tribalism, socialism, etc. that conservatives are talking about going to DEFCON 2.
Regards,
I'm terribly sorry if I gave the impression that point #2 proceeded from point #1 - or that there was any logical linkage between the two points at all!
On the contrary, these two points are BOTH true (to a degree) - but stand in opposition to each other. They are thus not ABSOLUTELY true.
Let me therefore rephrase my thesis:
A. Unless small nation #1 has a SIGNIFICANT technological edge over big nation #2, small nation #1 will find it nearly impossible to dominate big nation #2.
a) That is: Unless big nation #2 is in major cultural decline (q.v. Qing Dynasty China and the British Opium Trade or 21st-century America and "White Self-Loathing"). NOTE: "Cultural decline" does not necessarily equate with "demographic decline."
B. In a country with different discernible ethnic* minorities, those groups with higher birth rates will, over time, come to culturally/politically dominate, and, eventually, impose their will over or even supplant the groups with lower birth rates. Roughly speaking, the temporal sequence is as follows: Demographics (rising numbers)... Shift in cultural paradigms... Tectonic shift in political power... The "older" or "original" demographic is tossed onto the ash heap of history. It eventually vanishes.
C. In the case of Welfare States, it is not necessary for the up-and-coming demographic to work hard and/or contribute to society in order for this scenario to play out. Indeed, being parasitical may actually HASTEN the process.
The Vikings landed on America but got kicked out by the Little Ice Age and hostile locals, even though the Vikings had faster ships.
Yes, of course, a certain "critical mass" is necessary. Three guys with hand phasers would still be unable to conquer hoards of savages. And these are not "hard-and-fast" rules: "Black Swans" and other unplanned events can always "queer the deal."
Regards,
*Here I define "discernible ethnic group" in its BROADER sense, to include culture, language, genetic heritage, religion, etc. Readily assimilable groups / groups seeking to "blend in" are not included.
I'm guessing that he was a lurker for many years before officially joining?
20 years... 25 years... In any event, it's still damn long!
Regards,
Russia is one of the last holdouts to the NWO.
A. Unless small nation #1 has a SIGNIFICANT technological edge over big nation #2, small nation #1 will find it nearly impossible to dominate big nation #2.
***Hernando Cortez had just such a technological edge, with only 300 soldiers at his command. He had guns. Aztecs didn’t.
a) That is: Unless big nation #2 is in major cultural decline
***I don’t think the Aztecs were in decline at the time.
In addition to guns, Cortez also had horses. However, the critical factor was probably his 100,000 Tlaxcallan Indian allies. An aztec chief advisor had persuaded a previous administration that wars should be fought and military captives sacrified to the gods and used for food. They should become the Aztec’s “bread.” There were no large meat animals in the Aztec world. The Aztec word for tortilla was tlaxcalli. The Aztecs still had a strong culture, but their “bread” politics built up a huge cadre of committed enemies. All they needed was a strong leader—Cortez.
Putin is building up a strong cadre of committed enemies, and he is part of a culture in decline. It does not look good for him or Russia unless their is a major shift in outlook and politics.
Regarding someone at FR for 25 years. I can imagine someone being ordered to lurk at a new political forum for a few years, and then being ordered to join FR not long after the 9/11 attack. Thereafter to post propaganda and misinformation beneficial to an alien power, or bring attention and exaggerate weaknesses of the US and its leaders.
[Regarding someone at FR for 25 years. I can imagine someone being ordered to lurk at a new political forum for a few years, and then being ordered to join FR not long after the 9/11 attack. Thereafter to post propaganda and misinformation beneficial to an alien power, or bring attention and exaggerate weaknesses of the US and its leaders.]
Grounds for my skepticism? Native English language proficiency. Better things to do with his time. Likely just the usual Russian/pan-Slav/Eastern Orthodox complex. Or perhaps someone seduced by Tucker Carlson’s/Pat Buchanan’s/Rand Paul’s view that if we merely ignore the sound of the guns, it will all go away. Neutrality worked for Switzerland and Sweden because they were content to become part of the Third Reich. It would have gone badly for them if the US had stayed out and the Russians had won.
We’re no Czechoslovakia. We are the strongest country in the world. No reason for us to buckle under Russia’s boot heel. The problem with people like Carlson, Buchanan* and Paul is their eloquence exceeds their good sense and knowledge of geography. Russia is 4x the size of the EU combined and 70% the size of NATO *combined*. Assuming Russia isn’t forever run by kleptos and morons, its acquisition of Ukraine would make it much more dangerous the moment it gets strong enough to take the next iteration of what it’s been doing for the last 1000 years - expanding its territory by armed force.
What made Russia a tough nut to crack on defense - its vast territorial expanse - also gives it an edge on offense. The fact is it doesn’t have far to go to get to the Atlantic. That is why it is essential that Russia’s gains be limited or stopped in their tracks, if feasible. That’s what we’re doing by supplying Ukraine.
Russia has gotten past its period of relative weakness. All it needs is a Peter the Great to resume its expansion. Vladimir the Special isn’t the man for the job. But someone down the line will be. And we need to gird our loins for that prospect.
I’m skeptical.
***So am I.
Neutrality worked for Switzerland and Sweden because they were content to become part of the Third Reich.
***Nahh, Switzerland never became part of the 3rd Reich. They been aggressively neutral since, about the 1600s.
Assuming Russia isn’t forever run by kleptos and morons, its acquisition of Ukraine would make it much more dangerous the moment it gets strong enough to take the next iteration of what it’s been doing for the last 1000 years - expanding its territory by armed force.
***That is the Russian way.
Why Russia wants to invade Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4050958/posts?page=85#85
[***Nahh, Switzerland never became part of the 3rd Reich. They been aggressively neutral since, about the 1600s.]
Then you acknowledge that Switzerland remained neutral throughout world war 2. They were completely surrounded. No greater test exists for aggressive neutrality. Saying that sumthin would have happened or would not have happened is an argument from silence, the silence of the future.
[Then you acknowledge that Switzerland remained neutral throughout world war 2. They were completely surrounded.]
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/sinister.html
Say what you will about the Nazis - unlike the Swiss, they killed Jews out of personal conviction rather than for purely mercenary motives.
Then the Swiss would have gladly accepted the NAZIs and given up their neutrality. They did not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.