A tragic death I can’t talk about

One of my acquaintances here in Kiev was murdered last week. He had invited some new acquaintances into his flat and they killed him.

As an American, I can say to other Americans that he was obviously gay. He had every mannerism that one associates with being gay.

He displayed an array of the better qualities for which gays are known.  He was intelligent, compassionate, a good speaker, a reliable volunteer in a volunteer organization, and all around good company.

But… being a gay male frequently entails seeking many casual sex partners, and that in turn brings risks, among them disease and violence.

I can’t offer this observation to my Ukrainian friends because homosexuality is not something you talk about here.  They would think I was defaming his memory.  My wife was shocked that I should imagine that that he was gay. The victim kept it to himself.

It was certainly obvious, I would think to any foreigner who is here, and anybody who had much experience in the West, what his situation was. But he was in the closet, as almost all gays here are.

Is this a bad thing? I assume that had he been out of the closet we might have had a bit less of his company. Gays in the United States seem to have retreated in more into their own worlds, comfortable being with each other most of the time. There it is more than a subculture; it’s a dominant culture, on the march. Gays are lionized on TV shows, in the media and everyplace else. Here, on the other hand, gays seem to find it best to act just about like everybody else.

Being just like everybody else means only not flaunting their sex lives. Those of us who are married quietly go about being married. The assumption is that we sleep with our wives, but how and when is strictly a private matter. Same with people who are in long-term relationships, and singles. You don’t ask and they generally don’t tell. So this victim was living in a world similar to that that the gays had lived in when I was a kid, and that all of us heterosexuals live in today, in which sex lives remain generally private.

I doubt that he would’ve been better protected had he been out. I don’t think that the police would have vastly more sympathy; I don’t notice that they do much of anywhere. I am sure that the victim knew the dangers that come with inviting strangers into your house. When I was a young man hitchhiking in California, 50 some years ago, I was fairly often picked up by gays and I was rather struck by the risks that they took inviting me into their house. If I had been a different sort of person the outcome could’ve been difficult for them. Risk is part and parcel of their lifestyle, a fact of which they are acutely aware.

The reasons why people are the way they are hard to fathom. I’m quite sure that homosexuality is a choice for some people, but I’m equally sure that it was not whatsoever for this young man. It was in every fiber of his being.

Homosexuality is a phenomenon that might be explained but not a problem begging to be solved. Rather, my observation is that we probably induce more problems than we resolve by a bringing it to the surface the way the West has done. Let’s let sleeping dogs lie, and take a moment to remember a man who was accepted by all for just what he was: a nice guy.

What my children learned in school

My son, born in 1982, living in a wealthy neighborhood and attending expensive private schools, nursed a litany of complaints about “the man”. From about the age of 12 or 13 he would go on long riffs about how he was going to be independent and never work for “the man.” This incidentally, and not coincidentally, was offered as an excuse for not applying himself fully in school. I argued with him, asking “Who exactly is this ‘man’ that you don’t want to work for? What exactly is the oppressive system that you want to avoid?” He didn’t have answers to these questions, but the fact that I would even ask them clearly identified me with “the man.” Never clarifying his position, he steadfastly maintained his complaints.

A similar thing happened with my daughters. Again, about the eighth grade, the youngest was coming home from school with a long litany of woes of the things that the patriarchy had done to women. Though I probed, I could never get her to relate these historical wrongs to anything that my daughters had experienced in their lives. In fact, an examination of the men in their extended family revealed a bunch of milquetoasts, men who carried out the will of their women rather faithfully. I have to confess that I was the least pliable of the men, but I put up with much more than I wanted to. At any rate, these points also could not be argued. My daughters made a virtue of ignorance. They had the great disadvantage of not having learned much, which can be expected of teenagers. They also had the disadvantage of having learned that they could get by without listening much, and without showing much respect. They employed those two to the fullest, assuming that my better arguments owed only to my sophistry. Their beliefs in the patriarchy went largely unchallenged, except by me, and remain fervently held and to this day.

There is a twofold result of all this. First, and lamentable, is that the children don’t talk to me. I’m that old fossil white man who just doesn’t understand it. I suppose I could tolerate that if they were otherwise successful. However these attitudes toward life, the belief that somehow they in their hyper-privileged childhood had been beset by slews of evil people and held back did in fact hold them back. Rather than striving to form solid relationships with somebody of the opposite sex, a hard thing even when you set your mind to it, the girls decided that men were evil and they didn’t even want to bother. And they have not bothered much to make their relationships work, and not surprisingly, said relationships are not successful. Even when they later decided that they might want a steady lover or a husband, they simply don’t know how to do it.

By the same refusal to engage a supposedly corrupt system, my son and younger daughter have not learned how to work for “the man.” Or rather, they find themselves working for “the man” in the form of government, at low level positions where they get no respect.

It’s interesting to me that people who say that they will not work for “the man” envision a fat, piggy eyed capitalist who is out to exploit his workers. In no way are they prepared to transfer that concept to the state, the real “man” in today’s society. It appears that they are employed by other bureaucrats who are motivated only by their own advancement, with little care for the common people whose problems they are supposed to solve. My son is employed by the state directly or indirectly as a drug counselor, although he’s quite fond of them himself and has run into problems on this account. I hear that my daughter is going to be working attempting to resettle African immigrants in Scandinavia, another noble liberal cause. I hope she doesn’t get mugged or raped in the process. And she’s getting no respect and no particular money, working for “the man,” who is certainly not the one envisioned by John Gault or Horatio Alger but rather more Joseph Stalin. I doubt it’s in any better form.

I had heard the whole litany of man’s unfairness to man when I was a student. This was 1960-62, in a very liberal college. It was in the songs that we sang: “I am the man the very fat man the waters the workers beer;” “This land is my land, this land is your land.” The pervasive message was that it was capitalists who held the working man down. An objective view of history would say that at that point in time, 1960, the workingman had it better in the United States than he had ever had it in any country at any time in history. The claims of oppression were rather totally misplaced. In fact, was the workers in the Soviet Union who were being held down and had a lack of freedom. It was the same sort of a big lie, playing on the ignorance, altruism and herd instinct of otherwise smart young kids.

My experience with my own education and those of my grown children gives me a profound respect for the power of educators and peers to shape a child. 19th century teachers of Americans in one-room schoolhouses and British public school children advanced Western Civilization to the far corners of the world. The Marxist-schooled teachers of the late 20th Century have led the retreat. I have sought out one of the world’s backwaters where tradition is still respected, and where I can home school my new family as I see fit. There are many ways for it to go wrong, but experience tells me that a crap shoot is far better than the guaranteed loss with the establishment educational system.

The modern parable of the tower of Babel

Genesis 11 tells that all of mankind came together in Babylon sometime after Noah’s flood to build a tower to the sky. God, recognizing that if they were able to achieve this they would be as God themselves and they would forget about Him, scattered the peoples to the ends of the earth and confused their language such that they could no longer challenge Him.

Today’s generation has certainly forgotten about God for the most part. Mankind is united by science, the Internet and the belief that government will solve all our problems. Could it be that God is working through these mechanisms to repeat the story of the Tower of Babel?

In presuming godlike powers, governments are enabling every class of society to survive. The less intelligent reproduce willy-nilly. Progressives, more intelligent but not convinced of their own worth, dogmatically refuse to claim superiority over the witless lower classes. They preach to all who will listen – mainly themselves – that mankind is ruining the earth and having children is morally wrong. They aren’t producing of their own, and by redistributing wealth to the non-productive they make it difficult for productive members of society to have kids.

As a result, the world is populated by more and more less and less capable people. Meanwhile, the top echelons have been prodigiously inventive, making it possible for fewer and fewer people to accomplish mankind’s work. Just as people become more numerous and less capable, jobs are becoming scarcer and more demanding.

Humankind has reached a Wile E Coyote moment – off the cliff, legs churning over the abyss. The dumb are, predictably, not wise enough to recognize their situation. They are reaping what they have not sown and are not even grateful for it. The unproductive multitudes nurture more and more grievances against the system.

They resent the creative people who claim, some would say justly, an increasing share of the world’s wealth. Though they often can’t tell who is who, the multitudes resent others whose cleverness amounts to mere dexterity. These are people smart enough to put it over on them, devising diversions and financial instruments to cozen them out of their savings, homes and retirements.

Such imbalances have occurred many times in human history. They led to inquisitions and pogroms against the Jews, the anti-Western rage of the Muslims and the anti-White genocides underway in Zimbabwe and South Africa. There is no reason to suppose it will end more peaceably this time. We scions of the Enlightenment whose liberalism and inventiveness ushered in this halcyon era of rising living standards and widespread peace have run out of steam. We are dwindling in number and losing both the will and the moral standing to impose order on the world.

Après nous, le deluge. As we lay down our burden, the world is running out of resources, and most people cannot take care of themselves. Great will be the suffering as they fight over the leavings of the vanishing productive sector, and we of that sector finally recognize that liberalism has led to a cul de sac. Things must devolve again to the survival of the fittest. Will we have the grit to fight for our interests? Will Western civilization somehow survive, or will the world be left once more to barbarians?

History must be written in hindsight. We cannot see how this will play out. I’d bet that some future theologians will point back at our hubris, our mistake in putting our faith in governments and technology, to assert that God once again brought mankind down to our appropriate measure.

Refusing to give in to the double standard

We white men are subject to double standards in many ways. It is war. Forced to play by the rules, we lose. That is how they eviscerated good old Dad, the well-meaning white Christian doofus of 1950s sitcoms. I’m fed up and not going to take it any more.

In warfare there is the double standard that states have to behave themselves according to the Geneva Convention but nonstate actors do not. ISIS and Al Quaeda presume to be weaker and ignore these conventions. The Russians of late play it both ways. Despite being vastly superior in force, they pretend to be “insurgents” in Ukraine and operate outside of the conventions of war.

In the war between men and women, men are bound under the threat of severe penalties not to hit women. However, if a woman hits a man, he gets little sympathy. He is presumed to be stronger and able to defend himself. Many will assume he started it in any case. My first wife would flail at me with reckless abandon. Only half my weight, she was not effective, but if she had been, I would have been in a no-win situation.

Students in the 1960s felt entitled to do outrageous things and use outrageous language in attacking college administrations and the police. The officials had to react with restraint, using moderate language and avoiding deadly force whatever the provocation. There was a presumed inequality, and the forces of the state had to hold their power in check. They were overwhelmed.

It is the same in the battle between conservatives and liberals. Liberals assail me with all sorts of hurtful words. They call me a racist, homophobic, hater, an anti-Semite and whatever else comes to mind. The unfairness of it all never crosses their minds. As a supposed representative of the establishment I am expected to play by the rules. They don’t have to. They give no thought to the validity of their slurs.

However, absolutely asymmetrically, if I say something true about them they get righteously indignant. I have pointed out that the liberal members of my ex-wife’s family have not been successful in raising children. The kids among other things have not been successful in building careers, forming relationships, getting married or having children. If I state these truths, which seem evident enough to me, I’m accused of being hurtful and negative. They ask me to take writings down off my website. In the very same letter in which they do this, they insult my new wife and claim that I have written it only to savor some delicious, sadistic pleasure. I am just describing things as I think any reasoning person would see them. But – objective truth does not matter in their world.

The proper Christian response is to turn the other cheek. “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.” This is a good-sounding philosophy, but the fact is that unless I defend myself, the slurs will stick. It’s the technique of the big lie.

It is time for me to condemn those “stupid, muddle headed, group thinking, partner-swapping, vicious slanderous” progressives for what they are. I’ll have to admit that my string of invective isn’t quite as powerful as their “racist, homophobic, and sexist.” It is, however, much closer to the truth.

Somebody expressed the concern that I might hurt the feelings of some member of the family. Yes, writing the truth about them might do that. Did they ever consider what telling lies about me might do to my feelings? I doubt it – they probably don’t believe their lies, or expect that anybody else will. It’s just what they do.

In modern society we are forbidden to even investigate what appeared to be facts about sex and race and ethnicity, while the people who employ the double standard can attack us with impunity with words that clearly do not apply.

The supposition is that we white guys are strong, we can take it. If we attack them, were picking on the weak, and we should be more careful. But the other way around – we are men. We can take it.

Here’s the news. The generation of strong men is dying out. Strong men are losing their jobs to women and minorities. Strong men are being falsely accused of rape spousal abuse and all sorts of other things. Strong men are being locked up and shut out. Those of us who speak our minds, offer opinions, are being shunned.

It appears obvious that soon there will not be many strong men left to pick on. Women already lament, where have all the good men gone? The short answer would be that women should know. They destroyed them. Young men “failed to launch,” discovered the pleasures of homosexuality or pornography, got locked up on false rape charges, and/or connived their way onto the disability payroll. In any case, they are not there to be breadwinners for the new generation of women.

Many of those of us who were not destroyed have left. You ladies and minorities were not as weak as you let on, and our imagined strength was not sufficient to withstand your assaults. You won. Do you enjoy your victory? You have destroyed the movers and shakers, the people whose energy and creativity made America rich. You have discouraged them from having children, and when they did, perverted their sons into beta males, objects of derision. And in the process you’ve destroyed Western civilization. Are you satisfied with your victory?

The accusation that I enjoy hurting people through my writing is absolutely wrong. The truth is that I get quite angry that we cannot speak the truth. My pleasure is in solving problems. In life, as in mathematics, you cannot solve a problem unless you can state it clearly. When political correctness prevents us from framing them, we will solve problems only very rarely. Few are obliging enough that they go away on their own. They only get worse.

The fact that I could not honestly discuss my children’s problems in their relationships with us, their parents, or school, or with each other, or later their relationships with their boyfriends and girlfriends, meant that they never learned how to get along with anybody. The problems they have today are the result of our failing long ago to grapple with the truth.

My ex-wife and I did not raise successful adults. This bothers me more than it bothers any of the rest of their all-liberal tribe. I’m conservative. I would like to conserve what I thought was my forebears’ successful way of life. The rest of the ex-family are quite content to let their own, and my kids’ lives be meaningless, without grandchildren and without the perpetuation of any tradition. Up to their necks in the cess pool, all they ask is that nobody make waves.

If people want to prohibit me from speaking my mind for fear of hurting somebody’s feelings, too bad. Although it is certainly too late at this point to do anything about it, I want to proclaim emphatically that I should have raised my voice in the past. I hope that others can learn from my experience that it is better to tell it like it is. I will no longer submit to a double standard whereby others can say what they will about me, but I can’t even speak the truth.

Burning and looting is in Black evolutionary self-interest

We white people react in horror to the violence in Ferguson. What can the Blacks be thinking? I am not an evolutionary psychologist, but let me project some ways in which what they are doing might be rational.

First, one must recognize that the situation of Black people outside of the tribal environment in which they evolved is precarious. Europeans have historically been responsible for almost all modern science, industry, and business. Asians have recently started contributing significantly. Blacks have contributed next to nothing, and technology makes even their labor contribution increasingly marginal.

Black populations have been unable to acquire the education or the skills now in demand. The obvious reason for this is a lack of intellectual capability. However, because Blacks vote No government can afford to state this fact. Nonetheless, the conclusions of intelligence researchers which have stood for almost 100 years remain unchanged. Different populations have different average intelligences. As Steve Sailer wryly put it, the order understood back then was Semetic, Oriental, Caucasian, Latino and Negro. It is now Jewish, Asian, White, Hispanic, and Black.

The differences are large. The average Jew is smarter than 5/6 of white people, and the average white person is smarter than 5/6 of black people. The Wikipedia article on this, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence” – Google it, remains as valid today as when it was written in 1994.

Blacks have no recourse. Tribal life is no longer viable. They have no land available for subsistence farming. They have few skills that are valued in the labor market. They have become quite totally dependent on the majority society for their livelihood. And, they have become very adept at manipulating that mainstream society. Fortunately for them, mainstream society is quite affluent. Moreover, it is afflicted by altruism, easily permuted into white guilt by the Blacks and their enablers. This so far has given them what they need.

Blacks get jobs by demanding them. They challenge society to tell them why they should not have jobs in proportions equivalent to those held by other races. The honest answer, that they cannot do the jobs as well as others because they are not that smart, cannot be uttered. Therefore, the powers that be cave in and grant them jobs through affirmative action and other preferential tools. Blacks get jobs which they can only marginally perform but from which they cannot easily be fired. The society is rich; it can afford the drag on productivity that black employees represent.

Employed Blacks, however productive or not, are in line for a number of government provided benefits. They receive subsidies for purchasing houses, preferential admission to educational institutions which will grant them certifications that help them get a job. Insurance companies and others are legally prohibited from making rational decisions with regard to Blacks on the basis of statistical analysis of their driving, loan repayment and other performance indicators.

Many Blacks do not work. There are a host of government programs to make sure they survive. They benefit from unemployment insurance, disability programs, welfare, state run food programs like food stamps, private charities, a number of healthcare program, rent subsidies, student loans even when they do not study and other similar handouts. One would observe that a cynical knowledge of how to play the system is widespread throughout Black communities. It is not even cynical: despite having nothing on which to base it, they have developed a profound sense of entitlement.

Blacks have learned that crime pays. Many have no other way, besides taking handouts, of making money. Though they are not caught that often, the number who are overwhelm the system. There are simply not enough police to catch them or jails to lock them up. More than that, there is a legion of apologists who second-guess the police, schools, prison authorities and others that would attempt to hold them to account. Blacks are not given to deep thinking, but they correctly conclude that a thug life is not a bad deal, given their alternatives. Liberals are aghast that they would make such terrible life decisions. The sad truth is that Blacks are more rational than these overeducated bien-pensants. Their choices make sense within the context of their lives.

Rioting and looting made sense fifty years ago in Watts, Hunters Point and Washington. It makes sense today in Ferguson. Not for all Blacks, but for enough that they are able to carry it off. They riot, the police are constrained from responding with anything like appropriate force, and Blacks can carry off what they want. They also have the pleasure of intimidating the white man once again as they do it.

As a breeding population Blacks are doing well relative to whites. They have more children, shorter generations, and feel much less obligation to invest in those children’s education and socialization. Black children become wards of society at birth. White people’s taxes pay for their babysitting. Head Start and the school system, and food through the school lunch programs. White charities often provide them with clothes, summer camp and other amenities. Black people, unencumbered by the expenses, have more children than white people. They are evolutionarily more successful. While it lasts.

It would be an oversimplification to say that the Blacks are an example of a parasite killing the host. White societies’ altruistic toleration of black parasitism is only one of their many dysfunctions. They have lost faith in their own beliefs and traditions. Their endorsement of sexual practices totally unconnected with reproduction does not lead to children. The self-indulgent lifestyle of the baby boomers, financed with money borrowed from their children, is also unsustainable. One can say merely that celebrating diversity is one among many indulgences which is not promoting the evolutionary interests of white people.

Whatever brings it about, the demise of the white population will deprive Blacks of their host. Other peoples of the world will not be a sympathetic. If Blacks have so many children that they starve in the streets of Johannesburg, one can hardly expect that the Chinese will take it on themselves to feed them. Chinese have had no difficulty watching each other starve over the centuries. They maintain the benighted notion that Chinese lives are more valuable than starving Blacks.

White society, if it is to survive, needs to regain its own sense of tribal identity. This is happening in Europe. Génération Identitaire, for example, is a French manifestation. They are not anti-Black or anti-Muslim, simply pro-European. The effect is the same. If French resources are to be distributed among peoples, they want to put French recipients at the head of the line.

It may be that the put-upon white population of the United States is finally finding its voice, daring to speak the unspeakable. It is hard to predict what will happen when they do. As noted, the Blacks have nowhere to go. It will certainly be bloody and unpleasant, and it could mark the end of a remarkable civilization.

The diversity we don’t see is killing us

Everybody accepts that the peoples of the world are diverse in visible ways. We come in different colors, body shapes, and types of hair.

We observe, even if we do not talk about it, that the different peoples of the world enjoy different levels of success in modern economies derived from the European model. Europe, Israel and the white former English colonies know how to make it work. East Asia has been catching up quickly. Latin America, the Middle East, South Asia and Africa are trailing. There are any number of narratives to account for these differences, but at least people generally see them.

Last, and deadliest is the supposition among all peoples that other people are temperamentally like themselves. We Europeans developed a high level of altruism. Violence in European societies diminished remarkably over the last millennium, and levels of trust rose as we consolidated from duchies to princedoms to kingdoms. Business depended on trust, and commerce flourished. To us, a high level of trust is the only thing that makes sense. Our deadly flaw is to believe that other people think the same way.

The Jews are historically literate and legalistic. They have taught and followed their own moral law for three millennia. They do not understand people who simply do not recognize the rule of law. Jews are bankers and financiers. They do not have much sympathy for people who do not understand the terms of a mortgage or credit card debt. Time after time they are surprised by the reemergence of antisemitism, resentment of their success.

East Asians are quite xenophobic. They have a tendency to see their own nation – Chinese, Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese – as the only true humans, and to regard others as uncultured barbarians. Only reluctantly do they expand their sphere of moral consideration beyond their own people. The Japanese had no difficulty visiting unspeakable cruelty on the Chinese and the British in World War II. With the slow decline of Pax Americana, they are going at each other once again. They have certainly never internalized the brotherhood of man concept advanced by Western proponents of the New World order. Their people invariably come first.

American Indians are intensely tribal. Western individualism, the celebration of individual achievement in education and career, remains foreign to them. They had a difficult time adapting to European civilization in the five centuries since its introduction. We simply cannot celebrate their diversity in the context of a western market economy. They are not temperamentally adapted for it.

Arab societies are also quite tribal. They do not trust outsiders. One consequence is a high level of cousin marriage, which depresses intelligence. Another appears to be an inborn, genetic predisposition to hatred and religious fanaticism. We Europeans cannot understand the hatred that Arabs have for Jews, or even that Shiites have for Sunnis. It is our conceit that if they only understood their own self-interest, they would give up their hatreds. We remain oblivious to the fact that centuries of our preaching haven’t changed a thing. Hatred is in their DNA.

European colonialization did not affect the fact that black Africans are very tribal. They do not have much trust even among their own tribes, and they have almost none at all between tribes. Intertribal violence was endemic in Africa, and violence remains a constant in every African city. It is impossible for whites to conceive of a worldview in which violence makes sense; it appears impossible for Africans to conceive of a world in which it does not.

Our European proclivity to look for universal solutions blinds us to the fact that no other people in the world do so. We give, and they gladly take. It is a paradigm that worked when we were rich beyond the measure of any other societies. With the burgeoning population of the third world, and the rise of other economies, it has stopped working. We are, however, so much captive to our own genetically programmed altruism that we refuse to see. We refuse to see that people are different even in very obvious ways, and doubly refuse to recognize invisible differences. Those differences will kill us.

Short Bibliography:
Evolution and Ethics
Clash of Civilizations
Cultures and Organizations
Race, Evolution and Behavior
Face to Face with Race
Before the Dawn
A Troublesome Inheritance
Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit

Why would parts of Ukraine want to join Russia?

I Googled “reasons to join Russia” and “why Donbass wants to join russia” In Russian, “почему донбасс хочет в россию”

There does not seem to be an answer! The best reason I can come up with is “to avoid being killed by the Russians.”

The only list I found was in justification of the referendum in Crimea. The five strongest points were:
1. Everyone basically supports it anyway.
2. Only “right-wing radicals” are opposed.
3. The business investment environment in Russia is far superior to Ukraine.
4. Observers from Hungary, Serbia and Greece are cool with the referendum.
5. Moscow is extremely generous and already giving humanitarian aid to Crimea.
These would be weak even if they had been true, but they after the referendum it is clear that they are transparently false. Business activity has plummeted, unemployment and prices have risen, and individual liberties have disappeared. The indigenous Tatars have been ruthlessly suppressed.

The reasons not to join Russia have been known for centuries. Custine noted 175 years ago in “Letters from Russia” that “Deceit is built into every stratum of Russian society,” and “Russia’s lack of creativity dooms them to be perpetual imitators” – if not thieves, and “Russians do not know how to exercise freedom; they seek a strong master.” Russians have been trying for centuries, without success, to force Europeans to be like themselves. Europe has always, in the end, prevailed. It is wary.

The Donbass, the borderland dividing Russia and Europe proper, was a curious place even before Maidan. It was the center of Ukrainian economic activity and the homeland of the president and many ruling oligarchs. Yet, it was at the same time a mined-out, deteriorating rust belt of depressed, drug- and alcohol-addicted men with the worst health, life expectancy and attitudes in the country. As in America, such dropouts are easily led to blame “the man.” The Kremlin helpfully pointed out, via Russian-controlled television, that “the man” was embodied by Ukrainian-speaking Fascists in Kiev.

The targets of this propaganda could not recognize that Kiev is overwhelmingly Russia-speaking, and that the last Fascists were dispatched in 1945. Some bought it.

Putin is playing a weak hand. There is no advantage (aside from not getting shot by Russians) to abandon Ukraine. Putin does not wrap himself in any ideology such as communism or even religion. He has only the use of force.

Putin began his attack using “little green men,” unprincipled Cossack and Chechyan mercenaries. They are, however, few. If he is going to conquer and occupy Ukraine, it must be by a conscript army. The Soviet Union fell when conscript armies and puppet politicians refused to impose Moscow’s will through force of arms.

Russia has little industry; the income stream it uses to pay soldiers and placate civilians comes from natural resources. Sanctions, and the direct economic damage done by Putin’s wars have eroded that income stream. He will not have the money to impose his political will on unwilling peoples in the long term. Let us hope that not too many die as that fact makes itself apparent.