"Russubus"... "Orc-thodox Church"...
Don't sugar coat it, darling. Tell us all how you really feel about the place.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Do you think there will be an increase of polygyny in Ukraine and Russia following the war?
- Thread starter Bartato
- Start date
Don't sugar coat it, darling. Tell us all how you really feel about the place.
I think that polygyny is a good option for them but unfortunately for many women on the earth it is not an option that is even on the table. It is an area that has been dominated by Catholic monogamy only doctrine for generations. I am sure that are some who would consider it.
"Russubus"... "Orc-thodox Church"...
Don't sugar coat it, darling. Tell us all how you really feel about the place.
FYI, I am also not a fan of the Russian rapists and murderers. To me they're just latter day Philistines.
I was wondering why the age for conscription in the Ukrainian military was so high. They reduced it from 27 to 25 last April.
I learned today that they are leaving the younger ones in order to be husbands when rebuilding the country.
The young bucks will definitely need polygyny to cover all of the women.
I learned today that they are leaving the younger ones in order to be husbands when rebuilding the country.
The young bucks will definitely need polygyny to cover all of the women.
To be specific I usually draw comparisons to the Ammonites; not because there's a lot of difference in concept but because the world already has modern-day Philistines: Hamas. It works though.
There's that, and there's the fact that Ukrainians still have bitter memories of the youngest and strongest men being dragged from their homes (the ones who survived the Holodomor, at least) to be marched off to Berlin as meat-shields for drunk Russian officers and that makes the population kind of touchy about having men who were boys mere days ago conscripted for the battlefield.
Hm... maybe, but right now, both Russia and Ukraine seem to be doing everything they can to persuade young single men to move there and start siring children. In Russia this push has state backing (there was a cringeworthy "time to move to Russia" video posted on the Twitter account of the Russian embassy in Spain about a year ago that had a voiceover advertising Russia's "beautiful women" during a shot of a pair of elementary school girls). In Ukraine's case it seems to be more subtle, with the entertainment industry promoting the foreign volunteers who fight in the International Legion and making dozens of movies where a legionnaire falls in love with a local girl and settles down in Ukraine.
Though admittedly, unofficial polygyny seems to be on the rise. There was a news article about a Kharkiv bar owner who converted his bar into a shelter, and though the video didn't touch on it, the bar owner lives with two women who he calls his "fiancees."
Sadly, no, the Philistines tended to limit their rapacious and murderous tendencies to other countries. I wish Russian "men" did the same. I suffered the twin misfortunes of developing a woman's figure several years too early, and growing up ethnically Ukrainian in the Russian Federation. Raped more times than I can count, pregnant four times by four different rapists before I was 16, miscarried all four times because of injuries inflicted during subsequent rapes... ...and the response from the police was "you're a Khokhol (Russian ethnic slur for Ukrainians). You should be grateful for the attention from Russians." When I went for counseling from the priest at my church (Russian Orthodox), he told me I should praise God for the fact that my rapists were Russian, so my baby would be as well.
As for that, by the time I moved to America, got married and actually wanted children, I was so physically torn apart by years of drunk Russians playing "hide the shrimp" in every hole I had, I was told it would be nothing short of a miracle if I was even able to have a child at all (another reason I sympathize with Sarah).
With all that said...
Don't mind if I do, my dear.Don't sugar coat it, darling. Tell us all how you really feel about the place.
I wish the best for Ukraine (obviously), but as regards the Neo-Gengizhid regime of the Orcish Federation, I really hope Russia doesn't embrace polygyny, or increase their birth rate, or do anything else that will save them from the demographic cliff they're hurtling toward. Every time someone tells me "the Russian population is dying out," I throw my hands to Heaven and sing praises to God for His righteous judgement, and pray that He will hasten the day when the job is finished and the last of their filthy, savage, murderous seed is extinguished.
Let them die.
Let their widows be slaves in Chinese brothels.
Let their orphans starve in the streets.
If there are any survivors, let every zoo in the Western Hemisphere have a mated pair in their primate house so suburbanites can gawk at Troglodytus Russopithicus.
Let every judgement the Almighty inflicted upon Babylon and Assyria be revisited tenfold upon the sons of Muscovy.
It's nothing less than what they deserve.
Last edited:
Dear, not here.
I think you know that I agree with your sentiment and then some, and I think anyone who claims to serve God but doesn't hold a view of Moscagog somewhere close to this one is at best an ill-informed hypocrite and at worst a closet Luciferian. But nothing will be gained by spilling your guts here...
...Especially on a forum that is absolutely crawling with so many undisguised, unrepentant Russophiles.
We'll talk more when I get home, but for now, I think it's best if you log out and cool off.
Because breakup of USSR some 35 years has started collapse of birth rate. There aren't just enough men. There are at least 150 000 less 25 years old than 35 years old.
From wiki:
Situation in Holy Roman Empire was never same as in Russia.
Russia was always way more authoritarian society. Never nobles have been equal to Tzars. Horewer, this was true in Western world.
In Christian politics there is always distinction between temporal and spiritual power. So rulers should never meddle in church matters. Horewer, since Russia is driven Byzantine ideas which are variant of Roman idea of emperor as pontifex maximus, this results in Tzars being able to meddle in church questions way more easier and patriarchs less able to resists rulers.
Popes were able to fight off secular rulers. They have even tried to establish their supremacy over emperors. Never has any Byzantine or Russian patriach ever come close to any of this except as idea.
Till Reformation, there have never been any states in West after Romans (from 15th we can speak of start of modern states in Europe*) and anything approaching state church. There were still local beliefs which mattered. Horewer, Byzantines and Russians did have state church whole time.
*They still don't have monopoly on force and nobles can raise their own private armies. This stops around Wars of religion.
I question this.
Both were driven by a Church/state fusion where the State used the Church to enforce loyalty and the Church used the State to increase its own temporal power. In the HRE it was the Catholics and in the Russian Empire (and Putin's Federation) it is the Orthodox Church, specifically the Patriarchate of Moscow (not to be confused with the Patriarchate of Constantinople of of Kyiv). In both empires, the religion was more a tool for the State than an actual church (demonstrable today in the way Kirill has altered the Catechism to make it an unabashed and undisguised agency of the Russian State), and in both cases the Head of Church and the Head of State wrestled for power.
The only difference is in Russia the State won these contests more often than the Church, and in the "Holy" Roman Empire the Church won more often than the State.
There is no state in Medieval Europe, with exception of Byzantium and proto-state in case of Carolingians. Medieval Christendom is anarchistic civilization.
No state === anarchy. And no state church.
What makes sense is speaking of ruling class which can't unified and therefore can't enforce same policy. Look, kings/emperors wants more power, nobles want same, church depends. So they all keep each other in check and nobody can monopolized legitimate force usage.
Church can't increase temporal power because nobles (which form army) are against it, while king/emperor can't increase spiritual power due to alliance between pope and nobles. Situation is stalemate.
Which results in variants on theme local beliefs since laws are local and enforced locally.
Martin Luther is proof. Both Emperor and Pope ordered him to show at court. Luther has found protection at one of imperial elector who said: Nein. If HRE was state, Emperor's army would be able to arrest Luther. But since HRE isn't state, they can't arrest.
In fact, both Emperor and Pope can only cry. If they try something, their army would risk being gangbanged by 11 armies!. Yes, number is correct. One army is of HRE under control of Diet and there are 10 imperial circles which are responsible for self-defense and can raise armies. Army under Emperor's control is called Imperial army.
Army of the Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia
Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire) - Wikipedia
Imperial circle - Wikipedia
Again, if several institutions or groups of people can independently raise army, there is no bloody state. State = monopoly on force == only state can raise army
Which means medieval society used different armies to keep "power in check", while modern states hope to keep different departments of same organisation fighting. Which implies Christendom is way different society that current one and using "modern intuition" how stuff works is misleading.
For example, disobedient noble can't send to supreme court stuffed by politically correct judges. Why? Because there are several different court systems so finding "correct" one will take time. And no court system can incentive to give up case. So king can order time in dungeon, while other independent courts can other release.
So it's military action then. Without cannons there is no way to easily force into castle, so it's siege till starvation. And nobles may not show up to spend summer besieging some castle because king can't bring himself to negotiation. If fact, they may decide they need new king instead of current idiot on throne.
EDIT: Added sections on two occasions.
Last edited:
The collapse of the birth rate in the USSR started before the fall of the Soviet Empire. They just didn't widely report on the trend until the advent of the Russian Federation.
Russia: fertility rate 1840-2020 | Statista
The fertility rate of a country is the average number of children that women from that country will have throughout their reproductive years.
www.statista.com
The decline started in the 1860's and while there was a spike in the 1890-1910 era the overall decline can be viewed as starting in the 1860's.
Ironically, the social reforms of Alexander II coupled with industrialization led to a deemphasis on the agrarian cultural norms that favored larger families. This same trend can be observed all over the world where agrarian cultures industrialize.
The Soviet Era saw a huge decline in the birthrate. Socialism being a very effective form of birth control.
And there was stabilization from 1970 - 1990, then another collapse. Seen from your graph.The collapse of the birth rate in the USSR started before the fall of the Soviet Empire. They just didn't widely report on the trend until the advent of the Russian Federation.
Russia: fertility rate 1840-2020 | Statista
The fertility rate of a country is the average number of children that women from that country will have throughout their reproductive years.
View attachment 8869
The decline started in the 1860's and while there was a spike in the 1890-1910 era the overall decline can be viewed as starting in the 1860's.
Ironically, the social reforms of Alexander II coupled with industrialization led to a deemphasis on the agrarian cultural norms that favored larger families. This same trend can be observed all over the world where agrarian cultures industrialize.
The Soviet Era saw a huge decline in the birthrate. Socialism being a very effective form of birth control.
Is this similar to the rates in most industrialized nations?The collapse of the birth rate in the USSR started before the fall of the Soviet Empire. They just didn't widely report on the trend until the advent of the Russian Federation.
Russia: fertility rate 1840-2020 | Statista
The fertility rate of a country is the average number of children that women from that country will have throughout their reproductive years.
View attachment 8869
The decline started in the 1860's and while there was a spike in the 1890-1910 era the overall decline can be viewed as starting in the 1860's.
Ironically, the social reforms of Alexander II coupled with industrialization led to a deemphasis on the agrarian cultural norms that favored larger families. This same trend can be observed all over the world where agrarian cultures industrialize.
The Soviet Era saw a huge decline in the birthrate. Socialism being a very effective form of birth control.
Even more material:There is no state in Medieval Europe, with exception of Byzantium and proto-state in case of Carolingians. Medieval Christendom is anarchistic civilization.
No state === anarchy. And no state church.
What makes sense is speaking of ruling class which can't unified and therefore can't enforce same policy. Look, kings/emperors wants more power, nobles want same, church depends. So they all keep each other in check and nobody can monopolized legitimate force usage.
Church can't increase temporal power because nobles (which form army) are against it, while king/emperor can't increase spiritual power due to alliance between pope and nobles. Situation is stalemate.
Which results in variants on theme local beliefs since laws are local and enforced locally.
Martin Luther is proof. Both Emperor and Pope ordered him to show at court. Luther has found protection at one of imperial elector who said: Nein. If HRE was state, Emperor's army would be able to arrest Luther. But since HRE isn't state, they can't arrest.
In fact, both Emperor and Pope can only cry. If they try something, their army would risk being gangbanged by 11 armies!. Yes, number is correct. One army is of HRE under control of Diet and there are 10 imperial circles which are responsible for self-defense and can raise armies. Army under Emperor's control is called Imperial army.
Army of the Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire) - Wikipedia
Imperial circle - Wikipedia
Again, if several institutions or groups of people can independently raise army, there is no bloody state. State = monopoly on force == only state can raise army
Which means medieval society used different armies to keep "power in check", while modern states hope to keep different departments of same organisation fighting. Which implies Christendom is way different society that current one and using "modern intuition" how stuff works is misleading.
For example, disobedient noble can't send to supreme court stuffed by politically correct judges. Why? Because there are several different court systems so finding "correct" one will take time. And no court system can incentive to give up case. So king can order time in dungeon, while other independent courts can other release.
So it's military action then. Without cannons there is no way to easily force into castle, so it's siege till starvation. And nobles may not show up to spend summer besieging some castle because king can't bring himself to negotiation. If fact, they may decide they need new king instead of current idiot on throne.
EDIT: Added sections on two occasions.
The 'Reactionary' Libertarianism of Frank van Dun - Free Life
The ‘Reactionary’ Libertarianism of Frank van Dun By Richard Storey Before I reached out to Prof. Frank van Dun, I had it all figured out. Like many anarcho-capitalist libertarians, I believed that the Church, far from being a hindrance to state growth, was the primary promoter of centralised...
libertarianism.uk
What Exactly Did the Reformation Reform? - Free Life
What Exactly Did the Reformation Reform? By Frank van Dun[1] The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century reformed nothing but it changed everything. It was a crucially important factor in the demise of Medieval Latin Christendom and its rapid transformation in what we now know as Europe...
libertarianism.uk
Second is how changes into thought brought by Reformation have bringed states and centralization. Heavy philosophy.
First is Church against kings and law invention.
Yes, it is.
Every culture/people/nation that moves from an agrarian model to an industrial model sees a drop in their birthrate.
Here is Canada and their spike was post World War Two.
Canada: fertility rate 1860-2020 | Statista
The fertility rate of a country is the average number of children that women from that country will have throughout their reproductive years.
www.statista.com
And for comparison here is the United States from 1800 to 2020:
United States: fertility rate 1800-2020 | Statista
The fertility rate of a country is the average number of children that women from that country will have throughout their reproductive years.
www.statista.com
To reinforce my observation that fertility rates decline with industrialization take a look at China:
China: fertility rate 1930-2020 | Statista
The fertility rate of a country is the average number of children that women from that country will have throughout their reproductive years.
www.statista.com
China industrialized and urbanized during their Cultural Revolution and their fertility rate declined accordingly.
Thanks for the information. In all 3 graphs there was a there was a trend of growth between 1940 an 1960. China is slightly shifted to the right. Showing growth until about 1970. I know that the 1968 book "The Population Bomb" came out claiming that there are going to be to many people that will cause starvation and destroy the environment. Which seems to be the main talking points at least since the early 90's. Which have proven to be false.
Right. They started industrializing in 1958 with their Great Leap Forward but encountered resistance from traditional/agrarian Chinese. That led to the Cultural Revolution that started in 1966 whose aim was to rid China of its previous culture.
The birth rate decline in China follows their implementation of industrialization.
