Or:
The perfect response to Putin’s POV
‘A true Ukrainian Hitlerist would venerate the Aryan race as superior, and recognise that a great opportunity to cleanse their blood of gook sludge was lost when the Russians killed the conquering Germans in WW2. There had never been such an attempt to purify the Slav peoples, who were content to live debased under Boyar rule’. —Mauricio
I just watched the interview Tucker did with Putin, who gave a great Russian history lesson to the American (as our visitors know, history and biography are the most important subjects for my POV). The media will suffer a hysterical meltdown after this interview. We can already imagine Biden talking in the same depth, half an hour, about American history to a naïve Russian interviewer!
But there is one thing Putin got it wrong: Ukrainian neo-Nazis were, are and apparently will remain, pseudo-Nazis (and the same goes for neo-Nazis in other countries).
On this site we already know who is a real Hitlerist. Those Ukrainians who hold up as heroes other Ukrainians who fought on the side of Germany in WW2 have little, if anything, to do with real Hitlerism. These so-called neo-Nazis in Ukraine even subscribe to feminism, listen to degenerate music imported from the more Western countries, have a Jew as their president, etc.
The United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons twice, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. And they created a precedent.
Recall that during WWII the United States and Britain reduced Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and many other German cities to rubble, without the least military necessity. It was done ostentatiously and, to repeat, without any military necessity. They had only one goal, as with the nuclear bombing of Japanese cities: to intimidate our country and the rest of the world.
It actually continues to occupy Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries, which they cynically refer to as equals and allies. Look now, what kind of alliance is that? The whole world knows that the top officials in these countries are being spied on and that their offices and homes are bugged. It is a disgrace, a disgrace for those who do this and for those who, like slaves, silently and meekly swallow this arrogant behaviour.
_________
Source: here.
by Michael O’Meara
Editor’s note: In yesterday’s post I mentioned Michael O’Meara. While it is true what I said about his Christian sympathies, as can be seen in the article below, this piece by O’Mearea from nearly a decade ago is surprisingly topical, and helps us understand what is going on these turbulent days.
Originally published in Counter-Currents on 7 October 2013 under the heading ‘Too Much Putin?’, it also helps us understand how that webzine’s editor, Greg Johnson, has (like Richard Spencer) betrayed the cause by taking the wrong side in the recent conflict in Ukraine. Unlike this pair, in the first paragraph my red emphasis on the author’s words indicates why I believe the issue of these days in Ukraine is of vital importance:
______ 卐 ______
US hegemony may be approaching its end. Once the world refuses to acknowledge the imperial authority of its humanitarian missiles, and thus stops paying tribute to its predatory model of the universe, then American power inevitably starts to decline—and not simply on the world stage, but also domestically, among the empire’s subjects, who in the course of the long descent will be forced to discover new ways to assert themselves.
Historically, America’s counter-civilizational system was an offshoot of the Second World War, specifically the US conquest of Europe — which made America, Inc. (Organized Jewry/Wall Street/the military-industrial complex) the key-holder not solely to the New Deal/War Deal’s Washingtonian Leviathan, but to its new world order: an updated successor to Disraeli’s money-making empire, upon which the sun never set.[1]
The prevailing race-mixing, nation-destroying globalization of the last two and a half decades, with its cosmopolitan fixation on money and commerce and its non-stop miscegenating brainwashing, is, as such, preeminently a product of this postwar system that emerged from the destruction of Central Europe and from America’s Jewish/capitalist-inspired extirpation of its European Christian roots.[2]
The fate of white America, it follows, is closely linked to the “order” the United States imposed on the “Free World” after 1945 and on the rest of the world after 1989. This was especially evident in the recent resistance of the American “people” to Obama’s flirtation with World War III—a resistance obviously emboldened by the mounting international resistance to Washington’s imperial arrogance, as it (this resistance) momentarily converged with the worldwide Aurora Movements resisting the scorched-earth campaigns associated with US power.[3]
* * *
Everyone on our side recognizes the ethnocidal implications of America’s world order, but few, I suspect, understand its civilizational implications as well as Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
On September 19, barely a week after our brush with the Apocalypse, the Russian president delivered an address to the Valdai International Discussion Club (an international forum on Russia’s role in the world), which highlighted the extreme degree to which Putin’s vision of world order differs from that of Obama and the American establishment.[4] Indeed, Putin’s entire line of thought, in its grasp of the fundamental challenges of our age, is unlike anything to be found in the discourse of the Western political classes (though from the misleading reports in the MSM on his Valdai address this would never be known).[5]
Putin, to be sure, is no White Nationalist and thus no proponent of a racially-homogeneous ethnostate. This makes him like everyone else. Except Putin is not like everyone else, as we’ll see.
Certain East Europeans, instinctively anti-Russian, like our Cold War “conservatives,” refuse to appreciate Russia’s new international role because of historical grievances related to an earlier legacy of Tsarist or Soviet imperialism (though their grievances, they should know, bear little comparison to those “We Irish” hold against the English ruling class). In any case, such tribal grievances are not our concern, nor should they prevent the recognition that East Europeans and Russians, like Irish and English—and like all the national tribes belonging to that community of destiny distinct to the white man—share a common interest (a life-and-death interest) in being all prospective allies in the war against the globalist forces currently assaulting them in their native lands.
It’s not simply because Russia is anti-American that she is increasingly attractive to the conscious remnants of the European race in North America (though that might be reason enough). Rather it’s that Russia, in defying the globalist forces and reaffirming the primacy of her heritage and identity, stands today for principles that lend international legitimacy—and hence a modicum of power—to patriots everywhere resisting the enemies of their blood.
* * *
Qualitative differences of world-shaping consequence now clearly separate Russians and Americans on virtually every key issue of our age (more so than during the Cold War)—differences in my view that mark the divide between the forces of white preservation and those of white replacement, and, more generally, between the spirit of European man and the materialist, miscegenating depravity of the US system, which approaches the whole world as if it were a flawed and irredeemable version of itself.
In this sense, the decline of American global power and the rising credibility of Russia’s alternative model can only enhance the power of European Americans, increasing their capacity to remain true to their self-identity. US imperial decline might even eventually give them a chance to take back some of the power that decides who they are.
Putin’s discourse at the Valdai Club addressed issues (to paraphrase) related to the values underpinning Russia’s development, the global processes affecting Russian national identity, the kind of 21st-century world Russians want to see, and what they can contribute to this future.
His responses to these issues were historically momentous in being unlike anything in the West today. Cynics, of course, will dismiss his address as mere PR, though the Russian leader has a documented history of saying what he thinks—and thus ought not be judged like American politicians, who say only what’s on the teleprompter and then simply for the sake of spin and simulacra.
Foremost of Russia’s concerns, as Putin defined it in his address to the club’s plenary session, is “the problem of remaining Russian in a globalizing world hostile to national identity.” “For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society.” In a word, Putin sees identitarianism as the central concern of Russia’s “state-civilization,” (something quite staggering when you consider that the very term [“identitarianism”] was hardly known outside France when I started translating it a decade ago). Identitarianism in the 21st century may even, as Putin implies, prove to be what nationalism and socialism were to the 20th century: the great alternative to liberal nihilism.
Like Bush, Clinton, or other US flim-flam artists, Obama could conceivably mouth a similar defense of national identity if the occasion demanded it, but never, not in a thousand years, could he share the sentiment motivating it, namely the sense that: “It is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural, and national self-determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor will we succeed in global competitions.”[6]
The operative term here is “spiritual, cultural and national self-determination”—not diversity, universalism, or some putative human right; not even money and missiles—for in Putin’s vision, Russia’s historical national, cultural, and spiritual identities are the alpha and omega of Russian policy. Without these identities and the spirit animating them, Russia would cease to be Russia; she would be nothing—except another clone of America’s supermarket culture. With her identity affirmed, as recent events suggest, Russia again becomes a great power in the world.
The question of self-determination is necessarily central to the anti-identitarianism of our global, boundary-destroying age. According to Putin, Russia’s national identity
is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times [1917 and 1991]. The result was a devastating blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face.
Then, following the Soviet collapse of 1991, Putin says:
There was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology [promoted by Wall Street and certain free-market economists with Jewish names], would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi-official ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite—those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.
Putin here has obviously drawn certain traditionalist conclusions from the failings of the former Communist experiment, as well as from capitalism’s present globalizing course.
A new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character… [It’s an integral part of every true nation.]
The former Communist KGB officer (historical irony of historical ironies) stands here on the stump of that political/cultural resistance born in reaction to the French Revolution and its destruction of historical organisms.
In developing new strategies to preserve Russian identity in a rapidly changing world, Putin similarly rejects the tabula rasa contentions of the reigning liberalism, which holds that you can “flip or even kick the country’s future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything…” Like Burke, he in effect condemns the “junta of robbers” seeking to rip the traditional social fabric for the sake of short term profit, as these money-grubbers prepare the very revolution they dred.
Programmatically, this means:
Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity [against which America’s counter-civilizational system relentlessly schemes] are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic.” [That is, only Russians, not Washington or New York, ought to have a say in determining who or what a Russian is.]
Self-criticism is necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive. [These sorts of havoc-wreaking critiques are evident today in every Western land. Without loyalty to a heritage based on blood and spirit, Russians would be cast adrift in a historyless stream, like Americans and Europeans.] We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward…
The challenges to Russia’s identity, he specifies, are
linked to events taking place in the world [especially economic globalization and its accompanying destruction of traditional life]. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious, and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.
The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people [i.e., the Americans and their vassals] are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. [Hence, the US-sponsored desecrations of Pussy Riot.]
What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations [infected with the system’s counter-civilizational ethos] are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.
Tolerant and pluralist though he is here, Putin nevertheless affirms the primacy of Russia herself. Our politicians get this 100 percent wrong, Putin only 50 percent—which puts him at the head of the class.
At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardized [i.e., Americanized] model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.
Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional [as the Americans think they are], but unique, original, and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path…
This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia’s role in global politics. [Instead, then, of succumbing to America’s suburban consumer culture and its larger dictates, Russia seeks to preserve her own identity and independence.]
Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.
The grandeur of Putin’s assertion here has to be savored: against the latest marketing or policy scheme the US tries to impose on Russia, he advances his queen, pointing to a thousand years of Russian history, as he disperses America’s corrupting ploys with a dismissive smirk.
Though seeing Russia as a multiethnic/multi-confessional state that has historically recognized the rights of minorities, he insists she must remain Russian:
Russia—as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it—has always evolved in ‘blossoming complexity’ as a state-civilisation, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely the state-civilisation model that has shaped our state polity…
Thus it is that Russians, among other things, “must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature… to serve as the foundation for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness, and their basis for understanding the national idea…” Following Yeats, he might have added that the arts dream of “what is to come,” providing Russians new ways of realizing or re-inventing themselves.
I want to stress again that without focusing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs…
Think of how the “democratic” powers of the Americanosphere now hound and persecute whoever insists on managing his own affairs: e.g., Greece’s Golden Dawn.
The years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to herself, to her own history, just as she did at other points in its history. [This forward-looking orientation rooted in a filial loyalty to the Russian past makes Putin something of an archeofuturist.] After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.
As an ethnonationalist concerned with the preservation and renaissance of my own people, I hope Russia succeeds not only in defending her national identity (and ideally that of others), but in breaking America’s anti-identitarian grip on Europe, so as to insure the possibility of a future Euro-Russian imperium federating the closely related white, Christian peoples, whose lands stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals.
But even barring this, Russia’s resistance to the ethnocidal forces of the US global system, will continue to play a major role in enabling European Americans trapped in the belly of the beast to better defend their own blood and spirit.
And even if Europeans should persist in their servility and the United States continues to lead its “mother soil and father culture” into the abyss, Russians under Putin will at least retain some chance of remaining themselves—which is something no mainstream American or European politician seeks for his people.
If only for this reason, I think there can never be “too much Putin,” as our Russophobes fear.
__________
Notes
[1] Desmond Fennell, Uncertain Dawn: Hiroshima and the Beginning of Post-Western Civilization(Dublin: Sanas, 1996); Julius Evola, “Disraeli the Jew and the Empire of the Shopkeepers” (1940).
[2] Boreas Rising: White Nationalism and the Geopolitics of the Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” (2005).
[3] Against the Armies of the Night: The Aurora Movements” (2010).
[4] President of Russia, “Address to the Valdai International Discussion Club” September 19, 2013. (I have made several grammatical and stylistic changes to the translation.)
[5] Much of my understanding of this comes from Dedefensa, “Poutine, la Russie et le sens de la crise” (September 23, 2013) at [broken link].
[6] Samuel P. Huntington was the last major representative of the US elite to uphold a view even vaguely affirmative of the nation’s historical culture—and he caught hell for it. See Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005).
The war in Ukraine is the most dangerous international conflict since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Understanding its root causes is essential if we are to prevent it from getting worse and, instead, to find a way to bring it to a close.
There is no question that Vladimir Putin started the war and is responsible for how it is being waged. But why he did so is another matter. The mainstream view in the West is that he is an irrational, out-of-touch aggressor bent on creating a greater Russia in the mould of the former Soviet Union. Thus, he alone bears full responsibility for the Ukraine crisis.
But that story is wrong. The West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis which began in February 2014. It has now turned into a war that not only threatens to destroy Ukraine, but also has the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.
The trouble over Ukraine actually started at NATO’s Bucharest summit in April 2008, when George W. Bush’s administration pushed the alliance to announce that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members”. Russian leaders responded immediately with outrage, characterising this decision as an existential threat to Russia and vowing to thwart it. According to a respected Russian journalist, Mr Putin “flew into a rage” and warned that “if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.” America ignored Moscow’s red line, however, and pushed forward to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. That strategy included two other elements: bringing Ukraine closer to the EU and making it a pro-American democracy.
These efforts eventually sparked hostilities in February 2014, after an uprising (which was supported by America) caused Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to flee the country. In response, Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and helped fuel a civil war that broke out in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.
The next major confrontation came in December 2021 and led directly to the current war. The main cause was that Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. The process started in December 2017, when the Trump administration decided to sell Kiev “defensive weapons”. What counts as “defensive” is hardly clear-cut, however, and these weapons certainly looked offensive to Moscow and its allies in the Donbas region. Other NATO countries got in on the act, shipping weapons to Ukraine, training its armed forces and allowing it to participate in joint air and naval exercises. In July 2021, Ukraine and America co-hosted a major naval exercise in the Black Sea region involving navies from 32 countries. Operation Sea Breeze almost provoked Russia to fire at a British naval destroyer that deliberately entered what Russia considers its territorial waters.
The links between Ukraine and America continued growing under the Biden administration. This commitment is reflected throughout an important document—the “US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership”—that was signed in November by Antony Blinken, America’s secretary of state, and Dmytro Kuleba, his Ukrainian counterpart. The aim was to “underscore… a commitment to Ukraine’s implementation of the deep and comprehensive reforms necessary for full integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.” The document explicitly builds on “the commitments made to strengthen the Ukraine-US strategic partnership by Presidents Zelensky and Biden,” and also emphasises that the two countries will be guided by the “2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration.”
Unsurprisingly, Moscow found this evolving situation intolerable and began mobilising its army on Ukraine’s border last spring to signal its resolve to Washington. But it had no effect, as the Biden administration continued to move closer to Ukraine. This led Russia to precipitate a full-blown diplomatic stand-off in December. As Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, put it: “We reached our boiling point.” Russia demanded a written guarantee that Ukraine would never become a part of NATO and that the alliance remove the military assets it had deployed in eastern Europe since 1997. The subsequent negotiations failed, as Mr Blinken made clear: “There is no change. There will be no change.” A month later Mr Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine to eliminate the threat he saw from NATO.
This interpretation of events is at odds with the prevailing mantra in the West, which portrays NATO expansion as irrelevant to the Ukraine crisis, blaming instead Mr Putin’s expansionist goals. According to a recent NATO document sent to Russian leaders, “NATO is a defensive Alliance and poses no threat to Russia.” The available evidence contradicts these claims. For starters, the issue at hand is not what Western leaders say NATO’s purpose or intentions are; it is how Moscow sees NATO’s actions.
Mr Putin surely knows that the costs of conquering and occupying large amounts of territory in eastern Europe would be prohibitive for Russia. As he once put it, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” His beliefs about the tight bonds between Russia and Ukraine notwithstanding, trying to take back all of Ukraine would be like trying to swallow a porcupine. Furthermore, Russian policymakers—including Mr Putin—have said hardly anything about conquering new territory to recreate the Soviet Union or build a greater Russia. Rather, since the 2008 Bucharest summit Russian leaders have repeatedly said that they view Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat that must be prevented. As Mr Lavrov noted in January, “the key to everything is the guarantee that NATO will not expand eastward.”
Tellingly, Western leaders rarely described Russia as a military threat to Europe before 2014. As America’s former ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul notes, Mr Putin’s seizure of Crimea was not planned for long; it was an impulsive move in response to the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader. In fact, until then, NATO expansion was aimed at turning all of Europe into a giant zone of peace, not containing a dangerous Russia. Once the crisis started, however, American and European policymakers could not admit they had provoked it by trying to integrate Ukraine into the West. They declared the real source of the problem was Russia’s revanchism and its desire to dominate if not conquer Ukraine.
My story about the conflict’s causes should not be controversial, given that many prominent American foreign-policy experts have warned against NATO expansion since the late 1990s. America’s secretary of defence at the time of the Bucharest summit, Robert Gates, recognised that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching”. Indeed, at that summit, both the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, were opposed to moving forward on NATO membership for Ukraine because they feared it would infuriate Russia.
The upshot of my interpretation is that we are in an extremely dangerous situation, and Western policy is exacerbating these risks. For Russia’s leaders, what happens in Ukraine has little to do with their imperial ambitions being thwarted; it is about dealing with what they regard as a direct threat to Russia’s future. Mr Putin may have misjudged Russia’s military capabilities, the effectiveness of the Ukrainian resistance and the scope and speed of the Western response, but one should never underestimate how ruthless great powers can be when they believe they are in dire straits. America and its allies, however, are doubling down, hoping to inflict a humiliating defeat on Mr Putin and to maybe even trigger his removal. They are increasing aid to Ukraine while using economic sanctions to inflict massive punishment on Russia, a step that Putin now sees as “akin to a declaration of war”.
America and its allies may be able to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine, but the country will be gravely damaged, if not dismembered. Moreover, there is a serious threat of escalation beyond Ukraine, not to mention the danger of nuclear war. If the West not only thwarts Moscow on Ukraine’s battlefields, but also does serious, lasting damage to Russia’s economy, it is in effect pushing a great power to the brink. Mr Putin might then turn to nuclear weapons.
At this point it is impossible to know the terms on which this conflict will be settled. But, if we do not understand its deep cause, we will be unable to end it before Ukraine is wrecked and NATO ends up in a war with Russia.
John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
by Mike Whitney
USA and NATO: We are united in our determination to defeat Russia whether we blow up the planet or not. Got it?
Why is NATO sending more lethal weaponry to Ukraine? Didn’t Putin say that poring arms into Ukraine would increase the likelihood of war? Yes, he did, but the US and NATO continue send more shipments anyway. Why? And why does Ukraine need more weapons?
Could it be that Ukraine’s 600,000-strong military is collapsing like a trailer park in a hurricane? Is that it? Is that why NATO had an emergency confab in Brussels on Thursday to restate their support for a NATO-trained army that has not successfully launched even one major counteroffensive against the Russian military?
The media insists that the Russian offensive ‘has stalled’. Is that what you call it when your opponent captures an area the size of the UK in less than 3 weeks or when all your air and naval assets have been obliterated or when your Command-and-Control centers have gone up in smoke or when most of your combat troops are either encircled by Russian forces or fleeing to locations west of the Dnieper River? Is that what ‘stalled’ looks like?
Do you get the impression that the media is not being entirely straightforward in their coverage of the war in Ukraine? Do you think that maybe their WEF-linked owners might have a dog in this fight? Here’s how Archbishop Vigano summed it up recently in an article linking ‘Covid tyranny’ to the war in Ukraine: ‘The ideological continuity between the pandemic farce and the Russian-Ukrainian crisis continues to emerge, beyond the evidence of the events and statements of the subjects involved, in the fact that the ultimate perpetrators of both are the same, all attributable to the globalist cabal of the World Economic Forum’.
Truer words were never spoken. It’s all manipulation by globalist stakeholders pursuing their own narrow interests…
It looks to me like Chomsky thinks arming Ukraine was a deliberate provocation. Which it was. NATO stuffed the country full of weapons, trained its combat troops and paramilitaries, conducted military operations with NATO, ordered their army to the east so they could terrorize the ethnic Russian population, and then–to top it off–threatened to develop nuclear weapons. In short, they put a gun to Putin’s head and threatened to blow his brains out. If that’s not a provocation, then what is?…
But do the brave Ukrainians that are fighting in this fiasco, know what they’re fighting for?
No, they don’t. They think they’re risking their lives for their country, but, actually, they’re fighting to preserve US global hegemony by annihilating Russia, encircling China and establishing America’s dominance over the world’s most populous and prosperous region of the next century. That’s what they’re fighting for, Washington’s pivot to Asia. As the author of the WSWS article admits: ‘It is clear that what is involved is not only a war in Ukraine, but a campaign by the US and NATO imperialist powers for war against Russia and a redivision of the world’.
Yes, that’s right, and Biden doesn’t even try to hide it. Here’s what he said just two days ago: ‘Now is a time when things are shifting… here’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it’.
New World Order? You mean, this isn’t about Ukraine’s borders, after all? Nope. That’s all patriotic claptrap dolled-up for the serfs. Here’s how Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov summed it up on Tuesday:
This is not about Ukraine, this is about a world order in which the United States wants to be the sole sovereign and dominate… This all is about removing the obstacle in the form of Russia on the way to building a unipolar world.
Indeed, that is the objective, and the US is not going to be timid in pursuing its interests. China and Russia are under the illusion that the emergence of various power centres will inevitably bring about change in the global order. But the world doesn’t work that way. The world leader will not willingly concede defeat or graciously abdicate the throne. He must be knocked from his pedestal much like the schoolyard bully must be subdued through force.
In any event, we should try to go beyond the media’s propaganda and see if we can identify the real causes of the current conflict. Why, for example, is the US targeting Russia? In what way is Russia an obstacle that is blocking Washington’s strategic ambitions? The former Undersecretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, answers that question in one short paragraph written more than two decades ago. It is as relevant today as it was then:
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
In short, Washington sees Russia as a hostile power because it sits atop an ocean of oil and gas reserves and because it ‘defiantly’ conducts its own independent foreign policy. For these reasons, Russia is Uncle Sam’s mortal enemy.
__________
Read it all on The Unz Review! I omitted the passages where the author says (with other words) that NATO and the US Deep State are like the characters in Dr Strangelove: a film I saw on the big screen when I was about twelve years old.
Kremlin says: The US has long bombed civilians and used nuclear weapons in Japan at the end of WW2. So the US president has no right to lecture Russia. For context, RT’s recent article about Putin’s speech yesterday (click here for the whole speech) is an eye-opener. Here there are some excerpts:
Ultimately, the West’s desire to maintain its global dominance is the root of the ongoing Ukrainian turmoil, as well as crises in the other parts of the globe, Putin believes. ‘Today, the entire planet has to pay the price for the ambitions of the West, for its attempts by any means to maintain its crumbling dominance’, he said. Concerned only with their ‘vested interests and super profits’, the Western elites led the world into the current situation through ‘years of mistakes and short-sited decisions’.
For instance, the impact of the anti-Russian sanctions, imposed over the Ukrainian conflict, is already being felt by the common people in the West—while the elites have been bizarrely trying to blame it on Moscow, Putin noted.
‘I want ordinary Western people to hear me as well. You are being persistently told that your current difficulties are the result of Russia’s hostile actions and that you have to pay from your own pockets for the efforts to counter the alleged Russian threat. All of that is a lie’.
Emphasis in the original. Andrew Anglin has commented today on RT’s article: ‘Of course, no Westerners will hear this, except you dear readers and others who already understand the situation… At some point, you would think someone, somewhere in the media would be offering some kind of counterpoint here, or at least saying “just at least listen to what Putin is saying”. Instead, everything is banned. RT is blocked outright in most countries and banned from social media. No Western outlet will publish transcripts of these Putin speeches’. He adds:
When I was censored, virtually no one stood up for my right to share my thoughts, excluding Tucker Carlson and a few others. Then, three years later, the sitting President of the United States was silenced. All dissenting information about coronavirus was silenced. Glenn Greenwald pointed out that this was a big transformation, as they had gone from political censorship to information censorship. That largely went unnoticed.
Anglin concludes: ‘If free speech was not de facto illegal in America (and literally illegal in Europe), none of this would be possible’. We must, therefore, understand what young white nationalist Nick Fuentes also said yesterday. He encourages brave Russian soldiers who are fighting to ‘liberate Ukraine from the Great Satan and from the evil empire in the world, which is the United States’ (see clip here).
Indeed. ‘The Russian army is the last bastion against the satanic new world order’. This is a literal quote from the official Russian Officer’s Handbook. Captured by Ukrainian GUR, the document appears authentic (see source here).
Also recently, Robert Morgan said on The Unz Review that the US started out as a nation; a group of biologically related individuals occupying a definite geographic range. But it forswore true nationhood when it decided to admit negroes to citizenship—courtesy of Christian ethics! That changed it into the so-called ‘proposition’ nation. It’s now become an empire; a global empire based on the technological ‘progress’, Morgan states, that dominates worldwide culture, sucking up everything in its path, homogenising it, and changing the West into itself.
I can even observe this phenomenon in Mexico. Yesterday, out of curiosity, I saw what a very popular anchor was saying on a pundits show and it looked like his nails were painted. I don’t see anything of Mexican media because it disgusts me. But this time I made an exception and found out, through Google, that this swarthy guy is a vulgar fag. When was I going to see an anchor with painted nails in the Latin American media when I was a child? The idealisation of Sodom and Gomorrah began in the neighboring country to the north, specifically in what occurred to the mayor of San Francisco. Then the Gomorrahite idealisation passed to Zapatero’s Spain, and finally to Latin America. But all this shit originated in the United States of America.
The moral of this story—America delenda est, just like those two biblical cities were turned to ashes—can be guessed in my editor’s note today, regarding the book by the priestess of the sacred words we have been translating from French (we still need to translate the last chapter…).
Editor’s note: Although I’ll never support Ukraine’s Jewish leader, it’s worth reading the March 2014 article, ‘White Nationalist Delusions About Russia’ by Émile Durand originally published in Counter-Currents. The excerpts I quote below are extremely important.
______ 卐 ______
First and foremost, the Bolshevik Revolution was a revolt of the culturally and/or racially non-European masses against the European elite. In short, this critical event in history has to be primarily comprehended not in social-political but rather in racial terms.
The ideals of communism served only as a façade, as a tool through which the spiteful non-European masses expressed their deep and long-held hatred and resentment towards their European masters and everything European. This was already at that time clearly observed and eloquently pointed out by Oswald Spengler.
Most importantly, communism drastically and irreversibly changed the racial makeup of the Russian population. The Communist regime targeted mostly the intellectual and political elites for destruction, who were primarily descendants of the indigenous Slavic population and later European immigrants. Millions were murdered, and the luckier ones escaped to Europe, never to return. And since the de-Europeanization of Russia was first and foremost racial, it would be highly misleading to conclude that Russia returned to the European world after the fall of communism.
Putin’s “New” Russia
Indeed, the majority of the current Russian population reveres the Soviet past. The official ideology of Putin’s Russia rests upon its glorification. And, as expected, Putin’s Russia takes inspiration from the Soviet past rather than from the Russian Empire, which can be regarded as the only (quasi) European period in Russian history. Putin once even called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century.” Not the creation of the Soviet Union, mind you, but rather its collapse is the great catastrophe for Putin and his supporters, who are the vast majority of Russians.
Most importantly, every year Russians joyfully celebrate their “victory” in the Second World War (which they call “Great Patriotic War”), without regard to the fact that this “victory” was the gravest event in the history of the white race.
These celebrations are accompanied by military parades on the Red Square in Moscow. This cult of victory is the main pillar upon which the national identity of Putin’s “new” Russia rests. They venerate their “veterans of the Great Patriotic War” who were the rapists of millions of white women, murderers of millions of white men and children. Basically this veneration of the barbarian hordes, and the pride that they feel in the barbarian invasion of Europe, underlines their ethnic identity. This alone is enough to conclusively demonstrate that the identity and nationalism of Russians are in conflict with white ethnic identity.
Even the slightest attempt to shed light on the crimes of the Red Army and to revise the official WWII narrative is met with the same kind of hysteria that characterizes Western liberals. At every opportunity, the Russian media demonizes Estonia, Latvia, or Ukraine when they commemorate their heroes who fought alongside Germany against the Red Army defending their homelands, or when they remove the monuments to Red Army soldiers installed in their cities by the Soviet government. For example, in 2007, when Estonian authorities removed the Red Army monument in the center of Tallinn, the official Russian media went into hysterics, and “youths” from pro-Putin organizations surrounded the Estonian embassy in Moscow and threatened the ambassador.
There are a lot of Russians living in Estonia and Latvia (around 30% of the population). Their ancestors were settled there by Stalin in a deliberate attempt to change the demographics of those two small Baltic states. The social profile, behavior, and attitudes of these Russians closely resemble those of non-white Third World immigrants in western countries.
Putin’s Russia is nearly as anti-white as the liberal West
It is also a widespread delusion among western White Nationalists that Russia is free of Jewish influence and is an antidote to the Jew-led New World Order. Firstly, at every opportunity, Putin pays homage to the official “holocaust” narrative promulgated by the Jews. On many occasions he said that the holocaust was the most abominable atrocity in history, and the Red Army put an end to this horror. Since the cult of victory in WWII and the glorification of the Soviet past are the main pillars of national identity in modern Russia, this implies that Russian identity and patriotism are not only not opposed to Jewish interests but, on the contrary, are directly in line with them.
Secondly, anti-Semitism is very weak in Putin’s Russia, and Jews feel quite comfortable and welcome. Jewish life is flourishing at a level comparable only to the early aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution. A popular Russian-Jewish crooner, Iosif Kobzon, said not so long ago that “Jews are currently experiencing a Renaissance in Russia.” Furthermore, before the presidential elections in 2012, the chairman of the Council of Russian Jews proclaimed his full support to Putin and expressed his confidence that all Jews in Russia will vote for him. He even said that he doesn’t know a single Jew in Russia who would be against Putin…
Finally, and most importantly, real Russian White Nationalists, who are as much a minority in Putin’s Russia as their counterparts are in the West, are vilified as “Nazis” and are persecuted far more harshly than in the liberal west.
Concluding remarks
Russian identity is as trans-racial as American identity, Christianity, Islam, liberalism, and Marxism. Russian imperialism, like American imperialism, Christianity, Islam, etc., is a mighty engine of miscegenation, an engine that has been chugging away since the Middle Ages. Like the first Rome and the second Rome, the Third Rome is not a nation but a machine that liquidates every nation it captures, including its own founders.
Thus Russian imperialism is not an alternative to globalization, but just another form of it.
Thus Russia is not the future of the white race, but one of its graveyards.
The apoplectic left is choking on their own saliva—including Fox News (they’ve always been phoney traditionalists)—because Putin has defecated on American superbia (‘Nobody invades countries but me…’). Here’s another quotable quote by Nick Fuentes: ‘I for one am glad that Putin is standing up to Washington DC. Fuck the State Department, fuck the Pentagon, and fuck NATO!’ (see again our previous link from Fuentes here).
Someone with far more media audience than Fuentes in Eastern Europe, Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, has endorsed Putin’s vision on Ukraine. According to him, ‘the West essentially organises genocide campaigns against countries that refuse to stage gay parades’. Unlike these good Christians, neither normies nor most white nationalists are getting the historical significance of the Ukraine war.
If Putin wins it’ll be the biggest setback for the anti-white project we’ve suffered since the defeat of Nazi Germany. With the Russian-Chinese alliance (one flaunting the atomic missiles if the anti-white West wants to attack, and the other the economic muscle), the interregnum that started in 1945 will be over and the dream of Fukuyama, winning using ‘soft totalitarianism’, will evaporate like morning dew in the sun.
And soon the petrodollar will evaporate as well…
Sometimes what I call an ‘alarm clock dream’ wakes me up early in the morning. In the dream that woke me up today I was talking to Nick Fuentes about my book Hojas Susurrantes, and when I was wide awake I realised that, just as my autobiographical book breaks taboos (who talks about family tragedies with real names?), so Nick hilariously broke a political taboo in America.
I had originally embedded Nick’s two-minute clip on this post but as its white frame doesn’t match the colours of this site, I just linked to it above. Fuentes says in spoken words what we have been saying here in written word, but it’s far more powerful to use a video and speak out as he does as an American. Pay special attention to what he says: that the US regime must be humiliated, distinguishing it from the American nation. (We recently saw Michael O’Meara distinguish between nation and regime; the American regime being the big foe of Aryan Americans.)
On the other hand, Mauricio’s comment today is so much more insightful, so much profound than what Fuentes says, that it is worth reproducing it below (if this site is censored, the PDFs I’m uploading to the backup don’t pick up the comments, only the entries).
This entry [a passage of Savitri Devi’s book] was such a good read.
We know a Hitlerian society is impossible, and Time was against the Aryans ever since the mustard seeds of destruction were sown long before the Third Reich was born. But I can’t help but dream about how the War for Europe would have played out had it been prolonged into the Atomic Age; a vision of a much more brutal dawn of the Pax Americana.
That’s why Putin’s Show is so exciting—we’re witnessing the dusk of the Amerikwan Sun! We’re living in that scenario of hypothetical mushroom clouds!
‘One incommensurably harder than he will accomplish the final task—the task of rectification—on the ruins of a humanity that believed all was permitted…’ [Savitri]
Even as a degenerate Level 1 normie back in my twenties, I instinctively knew that humanity deserved much ‘worse’ than Hitler; that ultimately an Orwellian global hellscape would come in the 21st century from dwindling resources, ruled by tyrants more cruel, cunning and merciless than every communist leader put together.
Only then will the remnant Aryan thought-criminals begin to worship a deity made of pure Hatred.
But let’s bring it down to a level that ordinary racists can understand.
It’s a pity that O’Meara, the mature American intellectual who studied in Paris, is retired. Given what we have been saying here about white nationalism, should I be surprised that only Nick Fuentes and Andrew Anglin are understanding what is going on in Ukraine (Anglin’s latest post can be read here)?
Sometimes you need a truly juvenile mind, like that of a naughty child, to say that the king is parading naked in front of his subjects.
