Putin’s Russia: Imperfect Allies
It would be wrong to either idealize or demonize the government of President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation. He is neither as sound as White Nationalists would like nor as devilish as many mainstream democrats assert.
But Russia has one great, indeed unique, virtue. Gregory Hood has termed Putin’s regime “the one powerful white government that is not completely under the rule of the bankers and politically correct bureaucrats that rule the West.” Indeed, Russia is the last fully sovereign European-derived nation. Sovereignty exists in all spheres or not at all. Whatever one thinks of them, the Russians are indeed militarily, economically, geopolitically, culturally, and indeed psychologically sovereign like no other.
Russia today is more independent still than was France under President Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s, and is far likelier to remain so. In the rest of Europe, every nationalist government has gradually been subverted by the forces of disintegration at work in the West. France has grown weaker and less sovereign every year and is but a shadow of her former self; Spain and Portugal were seduced by the material promises of the European Economic Community, and Serbia was simply bombed and dismembered by NATO in collaboration with ethnic Albanian criminals and terrorists. Every attempt at emancipation from the American Empire, whether General de Gaulle’s Fifth Republic, François Mitterrand’s creation of a European currency, or Slobodan Milošević’s efforts to maintain Yugoslavia, has ended in failure. All have been dissolved by the culture of critique, multinational corporate interests, and the pleasures of individualist consumerism, or simply destroyed through violence.
The current crisis over Ukraine has in some ways been beneficial in terms of Russia’s independence. The Western sanctions do not appear to have had much effect on the Russian economy, but they have encouraged group solidarity, self-reliance, and pride. Russia is working with renewed effort to enhance its independence further, notably in IT and finance. GDP may well be a little lower than otherwise possible, but self-reliance has other advantages: “Autarchy is a good idea. Puts a nation on its toes. Makes more work. Stimulates invention. Of course we can’t do it a hundred per cent. But the nearer we can come to it, the better.”
This feeling of national unity is visible in the aid given to Crimea, where the people overwhelmingly support having rejoined Russia. Putin’s approval ratings are astronomical. Western governments, with few exceptions, are unpopular and are struggling to contain nationalist parties voicing opposition to being permanently demographically replaced through Third World immigration. While the West showcases deviants like Pussy Riot and Austrian pop singer and drag queen Conchita Wurst, Russia promotes the attractive Prosecutor-General of Crimea Natalia Poklonskaya.
The results of the Putin regime have been impressive. In the 1990s, Russia fell into chaos and poverty, mortality skyrocketed and fertility collapsed, whatever was left of the former Soviet command economy was plundered by well-networked oligarchs with the “advice” of a small clique of Harvard economists, including Stanley Fischer, Larry Summers, Andrei Shleifer, and Jeffrey Sachs, all heavily Jewish. The nation’s recovery under Putin has been nothing short of remarkable. GDP has more than tripled. A shocking demographic collapse (the population falling from over 148 million in 1992 to under 143 million in 2008) has been arrested, and there has even been a moderate return to growth (albeit through immigration, much of it from ethnic Russians and other Slavs from the near abroad). Even fertility has steadily recovered, reaching 1.76 in 2014, insufficient, but still a remarkable rise from 1.17 in 1999. Putin has made raising fertility still further an explicit objective, spending billions to this effect.
Russia, like other Eastern Europeans, wants to rejoin “Europe” (really Western Europe). In Putin’s speeches, at least before the Ukrainian crisis, Western Europe was the explicit standard for wealth, social well-being, and good government to which Russia aspired. But he will not crawl to Europe; he will not compromise on Russia’s fundamental interests.
All this, however, is not enough. “Putinism,” if there is such a thing, does not appear to be a very rigorous ruling ideology. Rather, the regime and its rules are the embodiment of the pragmatism and “common sense” of the Russian oligarchy that emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Union, a composite entity made up of the major industries (fossil fuels, arms) and the state apparatus (military, secret service).
The “Eurasian” project in general has serious flaws so far as European Identitarians and White Advocates are concerned. There is every possibility that the interests of “Eurasia” as a geopolitical, imperial, and economic bloc — notably with the joining of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in a Customs Unions — will be put before those of the Russian ethnos. The Russian population remains unhealthy, there is typically Eastern European crass materialism (showing off of wealth), and wealth concentration in the hands of the oligarchy is enormous. Why is such wealth not being spent on some national cause rather than on building mansions or being siphoned off to obscure bank accounts? The interests of Russia’s corrupt native bourgeoisie are not the same as those of the Russian nation.
Russia’s ethnocentrism, like that of the Central Europeans, is too instinctive, too intuitive. They know themselves to be themselves, and that the others are “Other,” because it is common sense. Russians will likely retain this common sense longer than will Central Europeans. But there is no explicit ethno-national doctrine. I do not know the Russian scene well enough to comment fully on this. What is the ethnic break down of fertility? What is the ethnic composition of immigration to Russia? (In the 1990s immigration was largely made up of Slavs repatriating themselves, but now immigration appears to be made up of various Caucasians [as in, from the Caucasus], central Asian Muslims, and Ukrainian refugees). The iconoclastic Russian thinker Alexander Dugin does not appear to have an ethno-national doctrine.
But there are also other tendencies in Russia. The popular nationalist website Sputnik i Pogrom is strongly concerned with Caucasian Muslim criminality. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, perhaps the most powerful Russian moral figure in recent memory, was an ethno-nationalist. In 1990, before the total collapse of the Soviet Union, he called on the country to shed its non-Slavic republics, leaving only a union of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russified north of Kazakhstan.
I am personally convinced the salvation of the European peoples and the restoration of our national and civilizational sovereignty will require a reconciliation between Western/Central Europe and Russia. I have the utmost respect for Ukrainian nationalists and their struggle to defend their people, well understood. But, as Western Europeans, there is little question that Russia is less hostile to our interests than America.
Russia is in objective alliance with Western European nationalist parties, providing both cultural and economic support. If a nationalist government were to take power in Western Europe, such as France, Russian support would be critical to preventing subversion or outright aggression by the EU and U.S. authorities, as occurred against Serbia. Beyond ideological considerations, Russia would do this for geopolitical reasons, in order to split Europe from the United States. More constructively, we can imagine renewed intergovernmental cooperation with Russia on mega-projects, already there is collaboration in aerospace, and the creation of a vast economic area, in Putin’s words, “from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” This would give a concrete unity to what Jean-Marie Le Pen has called “Boreal Europe.”
Such a scenario would likely be anathema to many Central Europeans vulnerable to Russian power. But the relative Russophilia of the Hungarian and Czech governments does show that a different attitude is possible (Czech President Miloš Zeman has asserted that Islamic expansionism is more dangerous than Russia). Personally, I do not think any homogenous country (such as Poland) has much to fear from Russia. I am frankly struck at how conservative Moscow has always been since 1945. The Soviets and Russians have since then never used their armed forces to expand, but have always used force (typically unjustly) to maintain a shrinking sphere of influence. I do not think Putin or anyone else sees any benefit in occupying any Russophobic people outside of the Russian Federation.
Russia will however continue to support unhappy minorities in ethnically heterogeneous countries, especially when these are ethnic Russians, as in Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltic states. There is rarely a right and wrong in these sorts of tribal disputes. These are yet more examples of the soundness of the ethno-national principle as embodied in the Treaty of Lausanne, even if such population shifts may be deeply unjust in the short term. Where such movements are not possible or desirable, Russians and Central Europeans should seek to respect each others’ minorities and legitimate interests.
Anti-Communism: A Factor of European Unity
Modestly, I suggest Central Europeans and Russians can be reconciled, just as the French and Germans have, if both sides take certain steps. I believe a good knowledge of history would be useful in this.
Central Europeans must not render the Russian people collectively guilty of communism. The early Bolsheviks were in their majority non-Russians — Jews providing the largest contingent, but also Poles, Georgians, and others. The Russian people did not create the Soviet tyranny. True, in the postwar years the Soviet elite was dejudaized and Slavicized. But by then the bureaucratic machine was already established, following its monstrous logic to its absurd conclusions, oppressing Russian and non-Russian alike, and was understandably willing to do anything to cling to the gains of 1945, the Red Army having fought its way to Berlin after the country had suffered tens of millions of casualties.
The Russians for their part will have to disassociate themselves more from their Soviet legacy. Pride in Sputnik and Gagarin, certainly, but Lenin and Stalin must be forgotten as the aliens they were. This will be difficult as, in an order derived from 1945, Russia draws considerable prestige and self-esteem from having been the single biggest contributor to the defeat of the Third Reich.
Anti-communism can be a unifying factor for all European nations. Anti-communism can also assist us in emancipating ourselves from the current order. Strange and shocking as it may seem, the spiritual and blood cousins of the Bolsheviks have enormous and even commanding influence in America, an influence achieved through cultural hegemony and the financing of both political parties. This is manifest historically in numerous episodes: in Wall Street’s strange financial support for the Russian revolutions of 1917; in the Holodomor-denial of the New York Times and other media during the interwar years; and in the ideological roots of both the New Left and the neoconservatives in Marxism.
Make no mistake: The cultural masters of America have only contempt for Europeans in general and for Slavs in particular. They have always feared and loathed Slavs, with their goyische kopf. The pejorative stereotype of the hateful, idiotic Slav is alive in well in Anglo-Zionist media. Recall Seinfeld’s “Ukraine not weak” scene. This caricature was also evident in Sacha Baron Cohen’s 2006 film Borat, portraying vaguely Slavic villagers as idiotic, inbred and joyously anti-Semitic (notably in the, admittedly hilarious, “running of the Jew” scene) . Borat also mocked rural conservative White Americans, clad in cowboy gear, as anti-Semitic, having them join in a song called “Throw the Jew down the well!”
More generally, for Hollywood and American TV, the Russians are “the go-to bad guys,” and they are a virtual obsession for the neoconservatives who have been strong opponents of Russia in Georgia, in the annexation of Crimea, and now in eastern Ukraine. Under the culture of critique, all ethnic European groups are understood to be evil, be it the Anglo-Saxon, the German, or the Slav. The same ethnic resentments that drove the Bolsheviks’ lust for blood are still at work in the highest cultural institutions of the West.
This hostility towards Europeans among the American elite is evident to this day. As Jean-Marie Le Pen has pointed out:
Concerning Europe, the Americans have taken the side of the Muslims, of Bosniaks and Kosovars against Christian Orthodox Serbs. They are pushing incidentally for Turkey, 95% Muslim, to enter the European Union. There are political ulterior motives whose results, I am forced to observe, are hostile to the survival of Europe.
This hostility is also evident in the New York Times’ push to open Europe to the teeming masses of Africa, even as that continent’s population is expected to reach a terrifying 4.2 billion by the end of the century, and even though no nation anywhere in the world has succeeded in happily integrating their African diaspora.
Meanwhile, the Times has not reported on Israel’s forced sterilization of its Black Ethiopian population. If any European nation attempted such a thing we would never hear the end of it! It would be portrayed as nothing less than a return to Nazism and a new Shoah. None of this is understandable except in terms of the ethnic biases and interests, conscious or not, of hostile elites in the West. It is cultural-demographic warfare.
Eastern and Western Europeans need each other and have complementary traits. They face a common adversary in the form of international Zionism and hypertrophied individualism/egalitarianism. Central Europeans and Russians can play a critical role in helping their Western brothers escape the globalist suicide pact. Central Europeans may believe they are strengthening themselves by clinging to the West, but how strong will the Western alliance be when the United States has an Afro-Hispanic majority and France an Afro-Islamic one? Does anyone seriously believe that the new Third World majorities will be will be particularly interested in “dying for Poland” or any other European nation in a conflict with Russia? Surely, in Europe, peaceful coexistence with Russians is easier than with Muslims or Bantus. Rather, Europeans should realize that peace and freedom in our continent can only come from two sources: spiritual and physical strength within each nation, and reconciliation between nations.
The corruption and tribalism of NATO’s Kosovar allies are truly remarkable, the worst example being outright organ trafficking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_theft_in_Kosovo
The words of an Italian naval officer prior to the country’s entry into the Second World War quoted in T. Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness: An Uncensored Report from Inside the Third Reich at War (Burlington: Ostara, 2011, first published 1940), 6.
Fischer went on to serve as Governor of the Bank of Israel and Vice Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve. What a résumé!
The flavor of the Russian ruling elite is suggested by top companies and oligarchs (as in the West, the latter are disproportionately Jewish). See Forbes’ lists: http://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/#country:Russia http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/#version:static_country:Russia
A friend informs me that Tatars and Bashkirs, the two largest Muslim groups have fertility rates similar to Russians, while these are much higher among Caucasian Muslims such as Daghestanis and Ingushetis (around 2 for both), and Chechens (around 3.5). East Siberian Buddhists such as Buryats and Tuvans also have higher fertility rates (2.5-3.5).
The Russian wars in Chechnya, while involving the repression of a Russophobic population, are rather different, because the goal was the maintenance of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation itself.
The impoverished villagers were actually non-Slavic Romanians and felt humiliated at not having been told of that they would be the objects of mockery. “We all hate Borat: The poor Romanian villagers humiliated by Sacha Baron Cohen’s spoof documentary,” Daily Mail, October 17, 2008. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1078446/We-hate-Borat-The-poor-Romanian-villagers-humiliated-Sacha-Baron-Cohens-spoof-documentary.html
The hysterically ethnocentric arch-Zionist Charles Krauthammer thought this hit too close to home, fearing it would give people ideas. Charles Krauthammer, “Just an Anti-Semitic Laugh? Hardly,” Washington Post, November 24, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/23/AR2006112300966.html
More generally, an evolutionary analysis of Baron Cohen’s work remains to be made. All of his characters, be he the Arab “chav” (Ali G), the backward Slav (Borat), the homosexual German/Austrian (Brüno), or the corrupt Arab leader (Admiral General Aladeen), mock and caricature peoples who have come into conflict with, and are often hated by, Jews. Baron Cohen does seem to have a certain genius for comically expressing the subconscious feelings of both Jews and non-Jews which are suppressed by the reigning culture.