The Russian Way of Being Free

My article for Novaja Europa about freedom and Russian mentality.




"The severity of Russian laws is balanced by their non-obligatory execution".

Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin


Is Russia doomed to be authoritarian? In order to answer this question, we must try to analyze both the Russian mentality and the political history of the country.


Do not mix politics and "mentality"

A common place is the assertion that authoritarianism is a necessary part of Russian mentality, unlike that of other European nations. Thus, the current dire situation regarding democracy and human rights in Belarus is often attributed to the fact that the Belarusian lands have been occupied by Russia for over two hundred years. During this time, it is assumed, oriental authoritarian mentality and manners have been planted in what is now Belarus.

Another common point is the assertion that the seemingly authoritarian mindset has not prevented Japan and Germany from becoming prosperous democracies after the Second World War. Both countries, though not without an external stimulus, have built their "economic miracles" based on economic liberalism.

Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between the possibility of building a social system based on liberal principles and, on the other hand, specifics of business and labour culture (within a liberal economy), which are influenced by traditions and mentality. This also applies to Russia, where traditions of authoritarianism should not be grounds for the idea that Russian people are somehow predisposed to slavery and dictatorship.


In what way are Russians freer than western Europeans?

Western Europeans are accustomed to an institutionalized freedom guaranteed by law and custom. Western liberal legal culture has a long history: from Magna Carta and the medieval German urban communes where "city air makes you free", to women's emancipation and the desire to overcome the effects of racial segregation in the U.S. (as evidenced by Obama's election for president).

Legal culture in Russia has gone through the tragic history of the Mongol yoke and has been forming differently, also influenced by the huge territorial extent of the country. At the core of this culture lays the balance of power between the rigid dictates of the center, on the one hand, and fragmented execution of orders on the regions, on the other side.

At the same time the Russian people have traditionally learned to see a greater importance of "objectivity" and of a justice higher than formal law. The law has traditionally been of poor quality, and therefore required a critical approach. Russians have been able to develop this critical approach to a much greater extent than western Europeans. Law in Russia is not a norm to be executed, but at best a "guideline" or, in some cases, simply an obstacle to be overcome. Western Europeans are not accustomed to such wit and intelligence in relation to execution of laws. A famous Russian proverb says "You can turn the law the way you want" - perhaps in this respect a Russian is more free than a Western person.


The Russian conflict: man versus bureaucrat

Russia has traditionally had an authoritarian and usually irrational government, which hindered realization of the people's potential. The history of Russia is the history of an eternal silent battle between reason and the law, between Man and the Bureaucrat. Because of the poor quality of modern Russian legislation, enormous intellectual and organizational resources used to withdraw assets to offshores and reinvest them back instead of developing the business.

As a result of that, the small island of Cyprus has formally become the second largest foreign investor in Russia. Besides, countries that may potentially be used as offshores are the source for more than half of "foreign investments" into Russia: the Netherlands take 18.6% of the total volume, Cyprus - 16,6%, Luxembourg - 15,1%, the Virgin Islands - 2 8%. Up to USD 300m were being annually spent on bribes and kickbacks in Russia before the crisis. The large scale of tax evasion and license tricks greatly distorts national economic statistics.

There are also "everyday" examples of violations of the imperfect Russian laws. For instance, the prohibition of advertising of strong alcohol is being overcome by advertising vodka brands as mineral water, chocolates or even books - and that openly on TV.

Authoritarianism is considered a distinctive feature of the Oriental mentality, dominating in countries like China or Japan. But that authoritarianism is a functioning one, where people irrevocably subdue to the leader and do not grumble or sabotage the production process like Soviet workers did. Since the Mongol yoke, which largely determined the characteristics of the statehood of Muscovy and its derivative Russia, the Russian mentality is a mentality of a Western man enslaved by an Oriental ruler.

Italian-strike-like protest against the government, silent and motivated rather at a subconscious level, is a feature of such mentality. There is a corrosion of public institutions, but also is the converse: Russian society is capable of self-regulation and self-government. Along with the failing state institutions informal institutions arise. These informal institutions are often even more effective and more fair than the government.


Modern Russia: no czars and no great guiding idea

In modern conditions, where there is no will of the hated lord to be sabotaged, a Russian mind may start treating the legitimate interests of fellow citizens as this "obstacle to overcome". And this can, under certain conditions, become quite dangerous. In some respects such behaviour is demonstrated by the rulers of modern Russia. For the first time in Russian history these people do not feel some transcendental and spiritual mission upon themselves (by will of God Emperor of the Third Rome, the Head of Russian Orthodox Church, Father Czar), nor a secular but still global and pathetic mission (a Global Socialist Revolution, or, conversely, the romantic liberation from communist dictatorship of the early 1990s).

The current Russian leadership has been formed behind the scenes from representatives of middle and lower grades of Soviet and post-Soviet nomenklatura. Now these people do not have a boss over their own head, but are accustomed to act on the same schemes as previously. In such circumstances corruption becomes part of the governing mechanism, the real decision-making is quite different from what is defined in the Constitution. The state itself, among its priorities, pursues primarily the interests business groups close to the Kremlin.

In the 1990s Russia started a transformation towards a market economy and pluralist democracy. However, such transition could turn into stagnation, which apparently happened in this case. In such situation the "adolescence problems" may cause complications and increase the risk of destruction of the Russian state as such. Fortunately, considering statements of President Medvedev, some fractions within the Russian government seem aware of the danger.

Many peolpe speak a unique and special path to democracy and freedom for Russia. Those who use such rhetoric, if they do not aim to justify the de-facto deconstruction of democratic institutions, should really search for ways to make liberal reforms and to redefine the role of the state in relevant Russian national traditions. These traditions, these traits of national character existed before, and are still valid now.

// Novaja Europa
Read more...

Forbidden to forbid: Georgia as Field for a Macroeconomic Experiment

The idea to protect economic freedoms on a constitutional level has for the first time been thoroughly formulated in the post-Soviet region by the Belarusian economist Jaraslau Ramanchuk. In 2007 he presented the project of an Economic Constitution of Belarus[1]. This document was supposed to supplement the country's Constitution in terms of economic policy and to guarantee economic freedom for the citizens and limitations for government intervention in the economy on the constitutional level. This may look as an interesting, but utopian intellectual project for Belarus, but in Georgia it will soon be reality.

A liberal economic regime guaranteed by Constitution

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili proposes to protect and expand the country's liberal economic regime on the constitutional level. According to the Act on Economic Freedom and the relevant amendments to the Constitution, a draft of which he introduced to the Parliament on October 6. If passed, the new legislative acts will set limits on the size of government expenditures and public debt, prohibit the imposition of additional licensing and other restrictions on economic activity of private entities.

Besides that, it will be forbidden for the Georgian state to own shares in banks and put restrictions on convertation of the national currency or movements of capital. Any tax increase will have to be approved on a national referendum [2].

Given that the pro-presidential party has a constitutional majority in the parliament, the Act and the amendments to the Constitution are likely to be passed.


Georgia's success under Saakashvili

Just like any politician, Mikheil Saakashvili can be criticized for many things: for an authoritarian domestic policy, maybe for lack of flexibility and diplomatism in foreign policy (although it is difficult to imagine what a president of Georgia could make in order to avoid the war with Russia in August 2008). Even this initiative and the way it has been announced has a fleur of PR and populism on it. But what no one is able to question is the scale of socio-economic progress achieved by Georgia under Saakashvili.

According to most international rankings, Georgia has one of the most attractive environment for business and for investors in the region (and even in the world). Having almost no natural resources or major industries from the Soviet era, in 2004-2008 the country showed an average annual GDP growth of 9.3% which is comparable to the rate for Belarus (10% in 2008, 8.2% in 2007, 9.9% in 2006) with its preferential prices for Russian raw materials, Soviet industrial legacy and manipulation with statistics.

The flow of foreign investment in Georgia has not stopped even after August 2008 (although it dropped to USD 226.1 million in the first half of 2009 to USD 1.143 billion for the same period of 2008). Economic losses of Russia from the war in the form of capitalization of Russian companies fall (a few tens of billions of dollars), the withdrawal of capital from the country (up to USD 20 billion) and the drop in Central Bank reserves (USD 16 billion) were much greater than the loss of Georgia, so the question of who has really lost that war is not a rhetorical one.

Now Saakashvili together with Kakha Bendukidze, the father of the Georgian economic reforms and co-author of the Act on Economic Freedom, have led the country to a major turning point, when the economic transformation is about to get a real deeply institutionalized character.


The essence of the planned economic transformation

The new reform will not simply allow Georgia to get immunity from leftist populist politicians, because forced redistribution of wealth will be more difficult. Mikheil Saakashvili has a chance to remain in history not as a man who lost the war in South Ossetia or returned control over Ajaria, a different separatist region. Saakashvili and Bendukidze are starting an interesting large-scale experiment, perhaps unprecedented in the economic history. For the first time a country of several millions people will try to move to quite a revolutionary socio-economic system, which differs significantly from the generally accepted model of a Keynesian economy.

It is difficult to blame the current global economic crisis on the free market as long as the modern state holds the key control over the economy through manipulation with interest rates, currency or the amount of money in circulation, or even more through direct participation in economic life. Bendukidze and Saakashvili decided to give up some of these institutional postulates that seem to be axioms for ordinary people but which were not common practice even 100 or 150 years ago. If the experiment is successful, the Georgian experience might have a truly global significance, the example of Georgia could become an important step towards a new economic model.


Obstacles and successes: Georgia and other countries

The main thing that can prevent the success of the newest Georgian reforms are the well-known external circumstances and the well-known danger of war that hangs over the country. Those who wish the Georgian experiment to succeed may only hope for peace in the region. It is noteworthy that this reforms just makes Georgia very interested in peace with its neighbors: in fact, it is much more effective for Georgia (taking into account Russia's military presence, actually much more easy as well) to attract the Abkhaz and South Ossetians with social and economic progress than to return control over these regions by military power.

Circumstances have helped Georgia to carry out radical economic reforms: destroyed by war and corruption, the political leaders simply had no option but to make the economy regenerate itself by implementing radical liberal reforms. Reforms bring their results, and Georgia now looks very well compared to other post-Soviet Caucasian countries - Azerbaijan, where the economy is only driven by oil exports, and Armenia, corrupt and surrounded by enemies.

A low starting position, when there is nothing to lose, plus a strong-willed and well-educated authoritarian president turned out to be the ideal conditions for effective economic reforms. Belarus can only envy and closely monitor the Georgian economic experiment: the time will come to learn from the Georgian reforms, and it may come sooner than it seems.


___________________________________________________________

[1] for more details about the Economic Constitution of Belarus see here (in Belarusian)

[2] for details see here (in English) and here (in Russian)


// Novaja Europa
Read more...

"European Choice" As A Ticket to "Titanic"

A translation of my yesterday's post to http://www.pozirk.org/ by the guys from http://blogs.tol.org/belarus

The "European Choice" as a Ticket to the "Titanic"

It is more than popular in the democratic community now to talk about European standards and that Belarus should follow the European path, introduce “European reforms” to comply with “European Quality Standards”. No one explains what it is, being European, making a “European Choice”, but everyone for sure knows that it is something attractive, sweet, warm, and tasty. Chruschov promised every family to have a flat and live in communizm by 1980. Like this, lots of naive people in Belarus suppose that Belarus should join the EU by ANY means, and the effect of this accession will be close to that of getting into comunizm waters.

Therefore when I read those calls to come to European March, I simply don’t know what to feel or think. Please don’t misinterpret me: we should go there - but for a different reason.

Calls for eurointegration resemble calls to provide everyone with free meet for the rest of their lives: here is an example of a typical logic employed today:

"Belarusian pension is something you can only cry on, not live on. Like an elderly lady who had worked all her life like an accountant asks why a German accountant who had worked at the same job, with the same responsibilities (but only in Germany) gets 600 EUR pension and can travel on that. Whereas she gets only 150 USD. They both worked the same time, with the same effort, but the Belarusian lady can survive only with her sons help, whereas the German Frau can travel around Europe. This cry shows all! The lady wants to live in Europe, get European pension for a European work . And the only thing that barrs her from that is that she lives outside Europe. Just a bit outside… "

So, what are we being offered now? That Europe is a magic key to all our problems. Should it come - and our life will turn into heavenly succession of problemless days. But it is never immediate. The German and the Belarusian accountants did DIFFERENT things as they worked for different economies. The Soviet woman worked for an ineffective socialist economy which was destined to die, sooner or later. This is the real tragedy, and not only of that lady in question, but of millions of people who wasted their effort to do useless work for a useless system. C’est la vie.

Democratization and europezation won’t GIVE people their long-wished well-being: they will ALLOW them to EARN it through hard work. It is difficult to fight agains Lukashist populizm without being a populist yourself, but democratic populism still remains demagogy, from whatever side it comes. Or may be Belarusian nation can not accept more complicated arguments?

No one asks a question how long European heaven will hold and what will it bring us. We just hear a “hardtalk” which all the time finishes in a conclusion that “we should move to Europe coz we are Europeans”, and that “when we join the EU, we will start earning like the Europeans”.

However, eventual accession of Belarus to the European Union brings lots of negative things as well. Bureaucratic apparatus created by Brussels weighs so much that the “old Europe” economy almost does not grow. This is the reality where shops are forbidden to work after 7 and where tax pressure exceeds 50% on average. These tax money are further redirected into such welfares when unemployed people get subsidies reaching an average salary in their country. They are also transferred into salaries of bureaucrats in Brussels. Salaries which are more than high.

This is a real social union. And social union (or state) is inflation plus unemployment, and that exactly what we see in the EU case. If it had been limited by just some states - one could carry that, but such standards are being imposed on all new members. Say, Estonia had to stop its several liberal trade programs and even increased import tax for some non-EU goods just because membership conditions required that.

European socioeconomic model does not simply deeffectize economy, but turns some categories of people into parasites (in a milder form than in social economies, but they still think that the state should take care of them in difficult situations).

And this is the main thing that immigrants living on subsidies in their ghettos learn about European life. And what is the awfulest thing here - that those people living on subsidies are RATIONAL in their behaviour: “Why should I care when the state will take care about me. Why should I work when the industrious pay half of their income to support such lazybones like me?”

// Source

Actually, there was also a second part of the post published today, hopefully they will translate it as well

UPD here it is:

Talented people were usually leaving Europe for America and Canada, and had been doing that till the very recent days. Entrepreneurs could realize their ambitions much easier in more liberal United States, Australia, or Canada, than in socialist Europe. Just recall Arnold Schwarzenegger who quitted his European Austria for the US dream.

Demographically Europe is dying, and after 50 years is going to turn into one big house for elderly people. That concerns not just the age, but also dinamism, innovativeness, proactiveness of position. Even now Western Europeans are the people who need nothing else from the world but to have their social guarantees and a croissant in the morning. They are sure the state will take care of them. And as a result, European culture is retreating under a passionate influence of active immigrants from Turkey, Africa or the Middle East.

Economically, countries of South-Eastern Asia together with the USA, Brasilia, India, and China are going to dominate in the world of the 21st century. Ok, adding up Russia whose oil influence will not decrease until Chinese economy is growing. The EU has no strategy for development, and has no clear view for the next 10 years. This might end in one of the 2 variants; either acceptance of liberal values and imminent economic and political increase, or a crisis with a post-acception of liberal values. Now Europe walks more the second way.


Once having joined the EU, there will be no way back. Accession to the Union means loss of state sovereignty. Once and forever. And this is not just about national honour, but about a simple ability to act as you want without a repressive influence of the social bureaucratic EU machine from outside. The machine which has no idea of what is going within. The Union is bound to centralize more as time passes, with local and national powers being left just with current-day questions to solve. As a small country, Belarus will have no weight inside the EU. And when joining, the EU will centralized more than ever.

Do we want Belarus to become part of such construction? After mere 15 years of independence to have come after 300 years of historical absence, do we really want to become pensioneers of this world?

There is a sence for Belarus to become a part of NATO. Accession to this organization will mean a guarantee for us that we are not going to assaulted again; this is a sign of democratic, choice in favour of freedom, democracy, and progress. A guarantee that not a single Eurasian empire will take our country out of that.

We need a non-visa and free-trade regime with the EU - exactly like with the other neighbors and in general with as many countries - as possible. But by no means we need to hang ourselves on the chain of eurobureaucrats, which depend on those social regime, and by no means we need to abandon our state sovereignty.

We should say NO to fetishization of the EU; we don’t have to behave like Georgia or Albania begging to accept us into the European family: we ARE Europeans. We should aim not at the EU accession, but at building a market competitive economy which would allow all people to earn decently and live with honour, which is based on democratic principles. Eurointegration might be a means on that way, but not an objective in itself.

There is only one valid argument in favour of European choice which can cross all arguments against. Pragmatic reality often dictates the choice which is far from the desired one. After years of anti-NATO ideology and in the wake of the fact of the NATO allergy people have now, the only option against new integration into an “Axis of Freedom” of some Eurasian dictators or into some new formation of the CIS which strengthened revanchist Russia will start assembling is a socialist, but at least democratic UE.

Read more...

Atlas Shrugged

My essay on Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", kindly translated from Belarusian by the guys from TOL Blog Belarus

***

written by czalex
translated by meramo

The world of Ayn Rand might seem exaggerated, but if you take a minute and look around, read the news, you can see this world: a world we live in. Characters of corrupt politicians, of so called "public opinion leaders", for whom "there's no black and white" but only gray unscrupulousness – all these things are described in the book. Positive characters – strong, conscientious men and women. They, may lack some "human" features, some liveliness or human weakness. But it's so because Rand first of all a great essayist, and only then – a writer.

"Atlas Shrugged" is a famous novel by the American philosopher Ayn Rand. It's among the first books in the genre of a business-novel, and is the first fiction book in the library of 3dWay. The novel was published in 1957 and was later recognized as one of the best and most important literature works of the 20th century. The story takes place in an unclear period in the future in the United States. Almost all countries of the world have become socialistic "people's republics". The USA is one of the last democratic and market-oriented countries, but is following other countries' path very quickly. The economy is in recession and survives only because few profitable enterprises led by talented and skilled businessmen. One of these companies is Taggart Transcontinental, a railway company . Its chief is Dagny Taggart, the book's main hero, has to fight for her business under the press of corrupt bureaucracy, which introduces more and more restrictions of the business initiative and as by that only worsens the situation.

Ayn Rand describes an absurd world and society where a person's disadvantage is the cause for rewards, where the initiative, intellect and ability for a creative work are punished by the obligation to take care of losers. This world is ruled by people who can talk about spirituality and refusal of the material while living in dirty bungalows instead of prosperous cities burned as a result of their Utopian "human-loving" projects. The rich ones have to take care of the poor, the strong ones – of the weak , the successful ones – of losers, the talented ones – of the untalented and the intelligent ones – of fools. Sweet speeches about public interests hide the real faces of amoral and corrupt people. Public life in these cruel conditions becomes entailed by oppression and violence, which lead the country to a complete disaster.

But there are people who resist the system, the "atlases" who hold this world on their shoulders – the business elite. The state uses them as it wants. But as they give wealth, technologies, working places – they are more and more blamed for selfishness and "oppression of the working people". As this happens, they one by one disappear, leaving the society to the hands of people, who curse them. When the working people have rights to strike, so the businessmen take this right for them too – and very soon it becomes obvious, what is the key element in economy. Labor can do nothing without intelligence and business talent; it is nothing but an instrument in the hands of businessmen.

The world of Ayn Rand might seem exaggerated, but if you take a minute and look around, read the news, you can see this world: a world we live in. Characters of corrupt politicians, of so called "public opinion leaders" and "philosophers" for whom "there's no black and white" but only a gray absence of any principles – all these things are described in the book. Positive characters are strong, conscientious men and women. They may lack some "human" features, some liveliness or human weaknesses. But it may be so because of Ayn Rand's being first of all an outstanding essayist, and only then a writer.

The economy of a country has to be maximally efficient, therefore maximally rational, therefore maximally liberal. The caring about other people can not be put above giving the chance to care about themselves to those who are able to.

The same works in politics and social life. When we hear that some monumental goals have to be put above a person's private interests, the road back to Stone Age begins. And it doesn't matter whether these goals are used to camouflage some hidden agenda or are a product of naivety. Fascism, theocracy, socialism – all regimes, which legitimize themselves in any ways but a neutral and cold-blooded democratic procedure, or that start talking of Utopian ideas – these regimes are unfair, irrational, and therefore inefficient, and therefore wrong.

The system of values, where people doing their best to achieve their own purposes and wealth is the best basis for love and friendship, because the relations between people in this way grounds not on charity, but on the mutual respect and utility.

All these things are described in the novel. Rationality is the only criteria for determining the social order. Any excesses are excessive and harmful. A very talented description of the way a society not following this principle develops is the main thing that makes "Atlas Shrugged" a book to be read by every educated person.

Source
Read more...

The US Budget graphically

http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/poster/

Might sound shocking for a post-Soviet: 67% of American state expenses go for the Military and for National Security.

"Evil American Militarist Imperialism"?

No, just what a state is actually there for.
Read more...

Eurovision'2007

Eurovision Song Contest

Every year everybody says that Eurovision is crap and they do not want to see it. But still, for at least several days it becomes the most discussed topic in Russian media and blogs.

The winning song from Serbia is though not bad, but nothing special at all at the same time. Just an other whiny ballad in Serbian - I even liked the Bosnian song that took 3rd place on ESC'2006 more.

Ukraine's trashy Verka Serdyuchka - that's who was supposed to win! :)

The man (hm!) is famous in post-Soviet countries for his unfunny humorist shows and sketches, and only a couple of years ago he started to sing songs that were of bad taste too but still something good for moving one's body after some vodka on a village disco.

An important topic discussed in Russia is now whether it says "Lasha Tumbai" or "Russia, goodbye!" in Serdyuchka's song. Some Russian bloggers already proposed to boycott him just as they hysterically called for a boycott on Estonian goods a week ago because of Estonian government replacing a Soviet monument in Tallinn. Ridiculous and lächerlich! As most neighbors with a complicated history of relations do, many Russians and Ukrainians don't like each other. As I have noticed, Russians express this in rudeness and aggression; and Ukrainians laugh Russians off and put them in situations where they look stupid. This is a typical case.

Russia's Serebro and Belarus' Dźmitry Kałdun aka Koldun were nothing special at all. Just an other two Eurovision songs: not bad, but not brilliant neither. Much more I liked the songs presented by Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland (I can't believe they got the last place!).

As to me, the very best song of this year's contest was Sopho Khalvashi of Georgia with "Visionary Dream". The promo video is as marvelous as the song itself!



That girl just broke my heart! The song got few votes - but that's because it's just too good for Eurovision, if you ask me.
Read more...

Europe's Extinction

Europe's Extinction

2007-01-06 08:08 / Aleś Čajčyc

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (Mt. 5:5 KJV)

The Western civilisation and democratic culture seem to be going to their fall, and this fall might happen rather sooner than later. And it will not be an economic crashdown, it will not be some nuclear terrorist attack and will not be a third (fourth?) World War. It will be the West's silent physical extinction.

We are all used to the information about Europe's catastrophe-approaching demography. By 2025 40% of UK's population will be over 50 years old. Italy's population will fall by 2050 by 22%. The population of Germany is going to shrink from today's 83 Mio to approximately 70 Mio. Among them 10 Millions will be people aged more than 80, the average age of the Germans will by that time be 50 years. The annual difference between deaths and births will be about 600 thousands deaths over births, compared to already 150 thousands nowadays.

It is mostly spoken about the economic and financial consequences of the approaching demographic crisis. A bigger percentage of pensioners will have to be supplied by a smaller part of generative working power. Still, the modern economy seems to have found a possible solution for this problem as the pensions are more and more supplied by money invested by future pensioners into retirement insurance and private pension funds. Working people in the West start providing for their future pensions by own investments and corporate pension schemes, although it is very questionable whether all working people will be able to use this scheme. An other option is to keep on rising the retirement age.

One can imagine the further development of this process with Europe finally transforming into a society of renters. Less and less human resources are needed for the economy, as the industry is more and more outlaid to countries with cheaper workforce, lower ecological standards et cetera. The capital resides in London, Frankfurt, New York and the production is in India, China. Globalisation melts the whole world into one society, where new social classes will at the first stage be constructed on the base of nations, with the West, especially Europe, becoming "capitalist" and the rest of the world becoming "proletarian". The Western society will herewith not be interested in renewing the population: just remember the prognosis of Russia's income per capita growing drastically within the next decades because of a slight growth of income, but a drastic decrease in population.

Without speaking of the danger of a globo-social revolution, the obvious trend is that one day in several centuries Europeans will simply die out.

Certain political powers put a taboo on discussions of political and cultural aspects of Europe's extinction. But the problem is still there and unfortunately can not be ignored: the extinction of Western political culture will obviously threaten the global democratic progress. Even immigrants in European countries often face problems in accepting their new home countries' liberal values, forming isolated ethnic and religious groups that live and promote totalitarian ideology. The global progress of liberty and democratic transformations will not be able to continue without having a base of adherents who have grown up in democracy and have the values of liberty as a cornerstone, as an essence of their mentality and world-view. The further Europe's depopulation progresses, the fewer of these people-born-in-freedom the world has.

There is also a more individualistic issue in the problem. Solving Europe's demographic problem is a question of simply whether we want to survive as a culture and as a civilisation, whether we do care about anything further than our personal animalistic interests, or we don't. The living conditions of a country may be good or bad or even very bad, the living standards may be high or low or even very low. But as soon as there are physically people there in the country, there will be a future for the nation, there will always be a chance for the situation to improve. That is exactly the strategic advantage of the "developing" African and Asian countries over the "developed" Europe. Is Europe's time up? Or are we still there? Do we care about existence of the European cultural identity in the future? These are the existential questions that must be set and must be answered above all.

Different solutions to the demographic problems are proposed by the political elites. The mainstream left wing seems to prefer leaving the problem as it is. It simply tries to handle external symptoms of the problem by introducing new pension schemes burdening the private business and trying to compensate decrease of population merely by means of migration. the conservative right wing sees the problem more deeply, but their proposed measures are even less adequate. The conservatives' vision means regress and abandonment of liberal and democratic freedoms, going back to the Kinder-Küche-Kirche-formula of woman's role in society, putting restrictions on migration.

Here we see an acute need for a "third way" in solving the problem. Finding the solution will substantially be put on our generation's shoulders, as those around-50-years olds of 2025 are us, today's twens. It is going to be our generation who will bury the European civilisation and the global democracy by simply not giving new bearers to them - or will find out how to overcome this challenge. Everything is up to us.

Third Way
Read more...

Are you too selfish for kids?

We are less likely than our predecessors to ask ourselves whether we serve a greater social purpose; we are more likely to ask if we are happy. We shun values such as self-sacrifice and duty as the pitfalls of suckers. We give little thought to the perpetuation of lineage, culture or nation; we take our heritage for granted. We are ahistorical

[...]

There is no generalisation in this article, no matter how harsh, that would not apply to me. I care about my own life in the present. I think I should be, but - doubtless because I don't have children - I'm honestly not very fussed about what happens after I die. I'm proud of the Shriver family, but not enough to help to ensure that it outlasts me. As Nora pointed out, my genes are swell. But like my friends', my sorrow at not having passed them on is vague, thin and abstract, and no match for Be Here Now. I fancy I work very hard; in socially crucial respects, I am lazy.

[...]

Meanwhile, as the west's childless have grown more prevalent, the stigma that once attached to being "barren" falls away. Women - and men, too - are free to choose from a host of fascinating lives that may or may not involve children, and across Europe couples are opting for the latter in droves. My friends and I are decent people - or at least we treat each other well. We're interesting. We're fun. But writ large, we're an economic, cultural and moral disaster.

[...]

In its darkest form, the growing cohort of childless couples determined to throw all their money at Being Here Now - to take that step-aerobics class, visit Tanzania, put an addition on the house while making no effort to ensure there's someone around to inherit the place when the party is over - has the quality of the mad, slightly hysterical scenes of gleeful abandon that fiction writers craft when imagining the end of the world.

Not to disparage old people, but "senescent" is not a pretty word. Large sectors of western population have broken faith with the future. In the Middle East, birth rates are still sky-high, whereas Europeans, Australians and many European-Americans cannot be bothered to scrounge up another generation of even the same size, because children might not always be interesting and fun, because they might not make us happy, because some days they're a pain in the bum. When Islamic fundamentalists accuse the west of being decadent, degenerate and debauched, you have to wonder if maybe they've got a point.

// a very good article indeed

My dream is to have at least two or three children.

Also I'm sometimes visited by the idea of converting to Islam, for that part of my heritage has definitely a better chance to survive in the future. Why belong to a group of people that are on their way to extinction and do not have a slight desire to do something for their own survival...?

Yeah, I'm a true volatile Russian inteligentsiya who is never satisfied with the way things are going. Because things really couldn't have been going worse!
Read more...

Wafa Sultan: the Arab-American activist discussing with Islamic clericals

Wafa Sultan, the Arab-American Muslim secular activist discussing with Islamic clericals on the clash of civilisations. Wise and brave.

Because of her ethnicity she may say some of that true things that unfortunately could have been labeled by some leftist as "oooh! bad ugly intolerant racist lies!" if said by a WASP or European.
Read more...

Borat - meine Meinung zum Film

Habe mir endlich “Borat - Kulturelle Lernung von Amerika um Benefiz für glorreiche Nation von Kasachstan zu machen” angesehen.



Hier in Russland hat das Staatliche Kommitee fur Kinematographie den Film zur öffentlichen Demonstration "nicht empfohlen". LOL weil Kasachstan Putins großer Partner und Verbündeter ist haben die staatlichen Trotzköpfe es angenommen, besser zu wissen, was ich mir für mein Geld im Kino ansehen soll. Egal, stoppen kann uns keiner, außerdem kann ich mir kaum eine belachbare russische Fassung vorstellen (genau so wenig wie eine sehenswerte deutsche). Es gibt Filme, wo man den Pepp nur in der Originalsprache mitkriegt.

Im heutigen linken Europa kann wohl nur sexuell oder fökal gefärbter Humor als letzter als politisch korrekt gelten. Ach ja, Scherze über Jesus Christus, egal wie derb und unverschämt, sind auch willkommen. Von allem davon gibt es im Film genug, doch ist es nicht das, was ihn so amüsant macht. Auch begrenzt sich das durch den Kakao gezogene Auditorium nicht auf homophobe und chauvinistische US-amerikanische konservative Rednecks.

Viel lustiger ist es sich die Reaktion Kontinentaleuropäischer Sozis, die ich ja sooo gerne mag, vorzustellen. Linke Political-Correctness -Hysteriker brechen wohl zusammen schon nachdem sie tabuierte böööse Wörter wie "Jude" oder "Zigeuner" vom Bildschirm hören. Dann wachen sie gegen Ende des Films auf und schreiben in ihren Zeitungen, was der Film für eine schreckliche Tragödie ist. Ogottogott! Gerade gegen diese Menschen ist - ob absichtlich oder nicht - die versteckte Provokation des Films gerichtet.

Außer dem wirklich kasachisch klingenden Namen und der blauen Fahne hat Cohens Borat Sagdiyev mit echtem Kasachstan nichts zu tun.

In Wirklichkeit ist Kasachstan ein Land mit viel Wüste und Steppe, bewohnt von nomadischen mongoloiden Kasachen und Nachkommen russischer Kolonisten. Vor wenigen Jahren bin ich dort gewesen, auf einem AIESEC-Treffen in Almaty. Ich bin aus Moskau 5 Tage lang mit dem Zug durch Steppen und Wüsten gefahren - und das nicht ohne Abenteuer. War das ein Megarlebnis!

"Borats Heimatsdorf" wurde in Rumänien gefilmt. Was Borat als "Kasachisch" spricht, ist Hebräisch und seltens Polnisch (und zwar sind es allgemeine Phrasen aus einem Touristensprachbuch wie "Guten Tag!", "Wie geht es Ihnen?", "Sprechen Sie Englisch?". Das klingt sooo genial! :D ). Der Soundtrack besteht hauptsächlich aus balkanischer Musik, darunter Goran Bregovics Orchester.

Borat ist eine Parodie auf Osteuropa generell und wider Willen insbesondere auf Balkan, weil Balkaner die Farbenprächtigsten Osteuropäer sind mit ihrem grellen Cocktail aus Armut, Provinzialität und Temperament. Ein Vorgänger von Borat in dieser Hinsicht ist das weniger bekannte Projekt Molwanien, jedoch ist Borat vielfach starker und lustiger.

Man muss zugeben, dass keiner es im Westen wagen würde, sich auf solche Weise uber Afrikaner oder Araber lustig zu machen. Aber uns Osteuropäer darf man schon egal wie lächerlich darstellen, und der Film ist ein gutes Beispiel dafür. Und das nur deswegen, weil wir trotz allem ziwilisiert genug sind, um über sich selber lachen zu können, statt dänische Botschaften anzuzünden. Und so habe ich den Film auch empfunden, wo zwar grotesk und übertrieben, aber grundlegend viel Wahres von uns allen hier gezeigt wurde, weswegen man sich nicht beleidigt fühlen muss.
Read more...