A few facts went a-missing

An interesting article over at Return of Kings the other day posited that Russia is becoming a rather good place for modern "unplugged" men to go, in order that they might expand their horizons:
A man who (wisely) chooses to leave the Western world today for greener pastures in the east has to be conscientious of the likelihood and timeline of their new home inheriting the pernicious and debilitating cultural Marxism and feminism of the west. A man moving to a place like Poland (or even Western Ukraine) today moves with the knowledge that these countries are on the trajectory towards Westernization and will very likely one day become unhealthy and hostile for a man to live and thrive in. 
Due to their history and a variety of current cultural factors, places like Poland will still take a number of years to get anywhere near the DEFCOCK levels of America or the UK. One who chooses to live in an “on the trajectory” nation like Poland today does so by making a calculation that it may be, say, 5-10 years behind the levels of feminism in Western Europe and that it is still worth it to enjoy the particular benefits of this society during the decline, while they still remain. It is a temporary reprieve rather than a long-term fix to the problems men face in the west.
The author, Arson Greyer, goes on to list several areas in which Russia has clearly made far wiser decisions than the West in general, and the USA in particular, has made over the last thirty years:

  • Russia has taken a hard-line stance against GMO foods and refuses to allow Western biotech companies to grow genmod crops on Russian soil;
  • The Russian government, under Vladimir Putin, has quite wisely resisted bringing in a huge influx of foreigners as cheap labour to substitute for expensive domestic workers, and insists that any immigrants must give up their native customs and adopt Russian ones;
  • Russia flatly refuses to adopt Western levels of indebtedness and attempts to live within its means;
I've skipped over the bulk of the details, obviously, but from Arson's article, one can and should come away with at least a reasonably positive impression of Russia as a country. This is no longer the land that gave us the abomination of the Soviet Union; judging by that article, Russia has significantly cleaned up its act and is no longer the land of nepotism, corruption, and no-holds-barred lawlessness that it once was.

For these things, Vladimir Putin can and should be given a great deal of credit. There is no question that, when compared to previous and utterly forgettable post-Soviet leaders, Mr. Putin has authoritatively put his mark upon his country and has done a very great deal to rehabilitate its reputation among the nations of the world.

Now, I have never been to Russia personally. The only connection that I can claim to Russia is the fact that I've known one or two Russian women in my time. (I also did engage in a consulting assignment, way back when, for Gazprom's US subsidiary.) Beyond that, I have no claim to being any kind of expert on the country, and I don't pretend to be one either. All I can go by is publicly available data and information. 

And because I can do that, as much as I hate to piss on someone's parade, I think there are a few germane facts that Mr. Greyer left out of his article.

1. In Soviet Russia, Law Breaks You!

A good counterpoint to the cheerleading in Mr. Greyer's article would be a recent op-ed publication in the Wall Street Journal titled, "Russia's Snarling Stuntman", in which the author, Stephen Kotkin, reviews a newly-published biography of Vladimir Putin, and in the process mentions a few things that apparently eluded Mr. Greyer's decidedly more effusive account:
Few people who have had a brush with Mr. Putin come off well here. After his re-election to a second term in 2004, the investor Bill Browder told a journalist that “people will forget in six months that Khodorkovsky is still sitting in jail”—and he and others continued to invest in the country. Similarly, John Browne, then CEO of BP, is heard dismissing the Putin regime’s annihilation of Mr. Khodorkovsky’s private oil company Yukos with the comment: “No country has come so far in such a short space of time.” (BP later partnered with Rosneft, the company that stole Yukos.)
The story of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's imprisonment is fairly well known, distorted though it certainly was by the Western media. That media establishment has presented Mr. Khodorkovsky's imprisonment on charges of tax evasion and fraud as a purely political manoeuvre, designed to cut off at the knees a potentially serious rival to Mr. Putin for ultimate power in Russia.

In reality, the story is almost surely more complicated. Mr. Khodorkovsky got rich during the massive systemic shock that resulted from the fall of the Soviet Union and the rapid privatisation of former Soviet state assets. That he made his money through what, under Western legal regimes, would almost surely be accounted as "suspicious" means, is not really in question.

The reality of this story lies somewhere in between the Russian state propaganda, and the equally florid Western version. Exactly where, I cannot claim to know. But both sides are at fault here. And what the story really underlines is the absence within modern Russian society of a fundamental and critically important building block of civilisation: the rule of law.

Any man who calls himself "neomasculine" must understand what this means. The rule of law is the absolute bedrock upon which any flourishing civilisation is built. With it, civilisation flourishes and men can create, build, destroy, and re-create, as we have always done. Without it, innovation is stifled, masculinity loses its meaning, and all of the great good that a man can do if his creative energies are unleashed will come to nought.

For all the drama heaped upon the supposedly "wild" American West, for instance, the reality is that the Sheriffs and marshals who supplied law and order during the heady days of the frontier's expansion were, for the most part, upstanding and virtuous men who created a natural order within the even more natural chaos of the wild. The frontier towns of the American West were, as a general rule, far safer than the big cities back east. And that is part of the reason why the Western borders in the USA expanded as rapidly as they did- because pioneering and enterprising men could go out to frontier towns in Colorado and Texas and Montana and Oregon, and have at least a reasonable level of confidence that the fruits of their labours would not be taken from them at gunpoint by someone else.

No such assurance exists within Russia. And it never really has.

You have to understand that for the last thousand years, and more, Russia has always been ruled by autocrats and tyrants. Vladimir Putin is no different. Democracy, at least as Westerners understand it, is simply an aberration within Russian history- as a concept, it makes about as much sense to them as squat-toilets make to you Americans. The ruling style of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, and even of Lenin and Stalin, make far more sense to the average Russian than the uniquely American concept of guaranteed individual rights.

Russians don't understand government as a constrained, dangerous force, the way real Americans do. They understand government as the ultimate source of power, stability, and peace- because it has always been that way in Russia.

To claim that Vladimir Putin is "a strong, masculine, and intelligent leader who appears to be primarily interested in advancing the interests of the his nation and people" is true, from a certain point of view. However, it is also true that he is essentially behaving according to type- this is what Russians expect from their leaders, and they have gotten it in Mr. Putin.

2. It's Still All About the Benjamins

Source: Statista.com

Mr. Greyer's claims about Russia's approach to sovereign debt are correct. Russia was, for a while at least, doing quite a lot to stabilise its finances and, compared to the United States at least, is the very picture of fiscal sobriety. A 20% debt-to-GDP ratio is a level of indebtedness that America left behind within a generation after the Jackson Administration left office.

However, there is one other fact about Russia that you need to know: this is a country that is still utterly dependent on natural resources to fund its wealth.

In an article that I wrote back at the beginning of this year, I pointed out that the West's single best tool to use to destroy Islam as a political ideology is the price of oil and natural gas. This is the graph that I used to make my point, sourced from Business Insider UK:

And now take a look at a similar graph that shows Russia's fiscal breakeven point:

That graph is in fact rather out of date. The last time I checked the price of Brent Light Sweet Crude is not $100/bbl or so. It is more like $42/bbl.

And it has been that way for some time now. That is the reason why Americans are seeing petrol prices (note to any heathen rebel colonists reading this: please don't call it "gas", that word means something quite different, and if you have it, please do me the favour of standing at least five feet downwind) at less than $2.50/gal at the pump.

Russia cannot long sustain such a crippling fiscal shortfall. And the funny part is, that critical dependence on oil and gas is precisely what President Reagan used to break the Soviet Union.

The Soviet economy, at the time, generated something like half of its entire national output from exporting oil and gas. The Russia of today has improved somewhat, but is still chained quite firmly to that particular anchor. And Vladimir Putin has done very little to change this fact.

This is not a society dedicated to setting men free to become entrepreneurs and capitalists. This is still a heavily statist society that is tied into a very small number of very potent, but highly volatile, sources of funding:

And also, let us not forget that, on top of these economic issues, Russia also has a serious problem with inflation. Loose monetary policy is always and everywhere to blame for inflation, and Russia's case is no exception.

Why is inflation a problem? Well, beyond the fact that it destroys the value of the currency, it is also a significant tax upon the ordinary people for the benefit of the wealthy and the politically connected. (That is partly why inflation is so badly underreported here in the USA- the elites in Washington, D.C., can't have us plebs rising up against them, after all.)

A government that steals from its people and hurts its poorest by imposing a hidden tax through inflation is not a government that a neomasculine man can call friendly toward a strong and virile culture.

3. Where Are the Babies?

And that's all before we get to the really big problem with Russia: it's a country that appears to be dying out.

Here's a graph from the World Bank to illustrate the problem:

Now, demographic collapse is not necessarily guaranteed. As Mr. Greyer points out, Vladimir Putin has instituted a number of pro-family policies that have made a very positive impact on total Russian fertility rates. And there is evidence from elsewhere to suggest that a doomsday scenario for Russia is not quite in the offing just yet.

Yet even the best case projections tell us that Russia's working-age population will shrink significantly over the next 15-20 years. And we know that male and female life expectancies in the country are completely out of whack with each other.

What all of this means is that the Western man's dream of going to the East to meet and marry a beautiful blonde ballerina is becoming rather less likely every year. And that will, even under the best case scenarios, remain true for some time to come.

Beyond this issue, there is a problem about Russian women that Mr. Greyer either forgot to mention or didn't know about. Various comments about his article, however, picked up on that issue just fine.

From "Son of Efreet":
I'd recommend that you people visit the country because you need to see for yourselves what it's really like. This article paints it as some sort of utopia, which it is not. I would guess that after only a few months of living there, most of you pampered millennials would be begging to come home. Guys like Roosh, and perhaps a few of you could make it work, but most of you not. Don't just take my word for it. Give it a try. 
What I truly take issue with in this article, and in other articles previously posted on this site, is the glorification of Putin. Yes, he is masculine, but he suppresses opposition and dissenting views with a ruthlessness that would shock many of his western admirers. After the US, the Russian military under Putin is the second most aggressive in the world, occupying four new territories (if you include Syria) since 2008. Why would you hate it when we behave like that but admire Putin for it? Don't be fools.
From "Anon":
Date a Russian girl. They make great girlfriends. 
Don't marry her though. Thank me later.
From "Bucky"
[I]t's possible to find a good russian/ukrainain/belarusian wife. especially if you are alpha and a man's man and/or have lots of $$. still, in most cases i would recommend what anon said. they make great girlfriends. hyperfeminine, savage in the sack (both of the ukrainiki i was with wanted it at least three times a day) and they'll cook and clean for you. but once you marry the typical eastern slavic chick, she's going to want tons of luxury items, expensive vacations, a ridiculous sports car, etc. as a female russian friend of mine put it to me quite bluntly "we do not love without material things." they are not exactly known for their loyalty or fidelity, so if you can't provide her with the stuff she wants, she's probably going to look elsewhere. also expect "what you earn is ours, what i earn is mine" to be her philosophy about money.
And from "Anon" again:
Russian women make bad wives for a number of reasons. After 30 there is a major tranformation, where they go from sweet girls to frame-controlling cunts. The looks fade quickly and the personality gets worse with every year. Not to mention a divorce-happy mindset that leads to some of the highest divorce rates in the world. 
My advice is to catch them young, in the 18-26 age bracket, and keep them as a short-term girlfriend. That is where they truly shine. They do have that one advantage over Western women, as Western girls make neither good wives NOR girlfriends.
I reiterate, I have never been to Russia, so I can neither confirm nor deny what these men are saying about Russian girls in general. I can only speak to my own experiences.

And my experiences show that Russian girls, especially those born to wealthy families as single children, are some of the most needy, entitled, and selfish women you will ever have the misfortune of meeting. They tend to be highly accomplished, highly literate, charming, and quite pretty- but they can also be insecure, needy, and annoying as all hell if you are not careful.

4. Ignoring the East

But the worst problem, by a mile, about Mr. Greyer's article is that it makes the classic mistake that virtually every Westerner makes about Russia.

Here's a picture that shows the extent of the entire Russian Federation:

See that? It's one whole country. The biggest damn country on Earth. You could drop the entire USA into the middle of Siberia and pretty much nobody would notice except the mosquitoes.

The bits of "Russia" that Mr. Greyer is talking about, really sit in the west of that honking huge landmass. What he is referring to in his article really constitutes Moscow and St. Petersburg, along with a few of the other major western cities of the Rodina. The parts of Russia that pertain to Mr. Greyer's measured praise sit in the most civilised, most Europeanised, most modern areas of a country that, in several important ways, is still roughly the same as it was during the time of the Tsars.

It's still a feudal frontier land in many ways. It's still deeply suspicious of the West- every invasion of Russia, ever, from Europe has always come through the states that sit right on Russia's borders, and the Russians (rightly) view those territories as their "sphere of influence". (With the very notable exception of Ronald Reagan and perhaps the first President Bush, most American politicians seem to be pathologically incapable of understanding how this affects the Russian mindset and its resulting extreme paranoia about invasion from the west.)

It's still used to being ruled by autocrats. It still has no patience for the "heresies" of the Catholic Church.

And, once you get further east, the women stop looking like this:

... and start looking like this:

So, lads, before you go rushing off to book your flights and get your visas to travel to Russia to see what's what, might I recommend that you just take a moment to think through precisely what it is you'll be getting into?


  1. The females most westernized as you describe, live around StPetersburg and Moscow. That fits what ANON and you say about their expectancies. Country life is different than city life as a general rule, so more info is needed indeed.

  2. I highly doubt any of the so-called Neomasculine men over at ROK has actually had any sex or a meaningful relationship with a woman, let alone a Slavic one. If they want to call all Western women disgusting whores, well as a woman myself I might say that these so-called Neomasculine men are a bunch of wannabe male sluts taking the advice of a guy who has lied about every single sexual encounter he's ever had.

    Yes, I'm talking about Roosh. When he was confronted on a Ukrainian talk show when the women he posted pictures off in his Bang Book never knew him, he dismissed her and said he never saw her in his life. It amuses me greatly to see men complain about Slavic women when Roosh was never able to get one himself. When it failed, he called them miserable whores.

    Now, as for Russia - it does have hundreds of minority groups. The Slavs have always ruled and the lower Caucasus peoples have made some gambles. Near the border between Russia and Mongolia you get really distorted looking Asian women. It's obvious to anyone with knowledge of HBD.

    1. When he was confronted on a Ukrainian talk show when the women he posted pictures off in his Bang Book never knew him, he dismissed her and said he never saw her in his life.


      The incident you refer to is documented in Roosh's own words about the interview:

      5:04: They found my Ukrainian girl pictures post and then brought out two of the girls.

      Just one problem: Roosh categorically stated in that post that he got those pictures off of the internet via a simple search.

      He stated even more categorically that he did not have sex with those girls.

      Unless you can prove otherwise, his statement was truthful.

      It amuses me greatly to see men complain about Slavic women when Roosh was never able to get one himself. When it failed, he called them miserable whores.

      Please prove this.

      In his books and in his writing, he has praised girls from Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. Given his public writings on the matter, either he is lying, as you claim- in which case the burden is upon you to provide conclusive evidence that he did, in fact, lie- or you are making a serious logical category error.

      I do not care whether you like Roosh or not. I am calling on you directly to prove your assertions. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a liar, gender notwithstanding, and that I will not tolerate.


Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Popular Posts