Print this post Print this post

The Crimea Annexation:
Putin Profits from Stalin’s Crimes

stalin_putin1,307 words

Times are changing fast. The political and social climate in the West is proving to be auspicious for White Nationalists to come to power in the future. Indeed, this may happen sooner than we think. It has therefore to be insured that once White Nationalists come to power they espouse the world-view conducive to making decisions in the best interests of the white race.

However, observing how European nationalists naively pay homage to Vladimir Putin and fawn over Russia, one cannot help but wonder if the White Nationalist movement would really serve white interests if it ascended to power in its current form and if the hypothetical victory of European nationalist parties would actually be good for white Europeans.

There is, indeed, a lot to be corrected and reshaped in the current White Nationalist worldview before it becomes a coherent thought system not only ready to take power but more importantly to use that power to bring salvation to the white race. It seems that a crucial aspect of this reshaping process will have to be dispelling the illusions harbored by many White Nationalists about Russia and, in particular, about the intentions of its leader, Vladimir Putin.

Recently, the representatives of the Flemish Vlaams Belang, Hungarian Jobbik, and other nationalist parties in Europe participated as “international observers” voicing their support for the Russian annexation of Crimea during the referendum held on March 16, which was carried out at gunpoint under Russian occupation. Obviously, the authenticity of the results, like those of any election in Putin’s Russia, are highly doubtful, to say the least. Other European nationalist parties made official statements along the same lines, alluding to Crimea allegedly being a historical part of Russia and Russians comprising the majority of the population on the peninsula. I wish to argue, however, that White Nationalist support for the Russian annexation of Crimea amounts to a ratification of Stalin’s crimes.

Crimea and Eastern Ukraine Were Never Ethnically Russian Throughout History

Russians became the dominant majority in Crimea only after the ethnic cleansing of Crimean Tatars and other nationalities (i.e., Germans, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians) by Stalin, which culminated in hundreds of thousands of them being deported to Central Asia during WWII. Many of them died in exile from hunger and disease. Later, most of the survivors were forbidden to resettle in Crimea. Instead the peninsula was repopulated with Russian colonists from the central regions of Russia.

The same holds true for the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine, which today have a largely Russian-speaking population. Prior to the Holodomor, Ukrainians were by far the largest group in those regions. There were also large Greek and Tatar communities but not as populous as in Crimea. However, through the Holodomor an estimated 7 to 8 million Ukrainians were starved to death by the Soviet government in a deliberate attempt to eradicate the indigenous population and to thwart the rise of Ukrainian nationalism. And, as it always was, they were replaced by Russians. Thus Russians currently populating Kharkiv, Donetsk, and other eastern regions are mostly descendants of those who were settled there after 1933 following the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Ukrainian population.

Back in Western Europe, in certain parts of Paris and Berlin, Arabs and Turks respectively already constitute the majority of the population. With the logic applied to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, those districts then have to be ceded to Algeria and Turkey, with more parts of France, Germany, and other European countries being candidates for future secession. Have European nationalists thought about such a logical application of the “self-determination” principle?

Acknowledging the right of self-determination for every ethnic group is an important aspect of White Nationalism, no doubt about that. However, with their recognition of the sham referendum and Russian annexation of Crimea, European nationalists became complicit in the fraud and blatant violations committed by Russia. Do they really believe that a fair referendum can be carried out under gunpoint, within two weeks after the announcement of its date, in the absence of any prior campaigning, and without giving floor to the opposition? Moreover, White Nationalists apparently are not aware that Russians currently constitute 58% of the Crimean population, whereas according to the official results of the referendum 93% voted for Crimean “independence.” Do they seriously believe in the authenticity of this number? Last but not least, apparently they are also not aware that Crimean Tatars, who constitute 13% of the population, did not vote at all.

Finally, no sane person at least slightly familiar with Russia can believe that Russian government and officials, who commit blatant human rights violations in every sphere of life in their own country, will suddenly become interested in conducting a fair referendum, especially since Putin and his high-ranking officials were openly expressing their intentions to annex Crimea even before the announcement of the referendum date.

Russians Living in Post-Soviet Republics Serve as Pretexts for Russia’s Imperial Ambitions

putin-stalin-2If the Russian government was really concerned about the Russian speakers living in post-Soviet republics it would try to repatriate them back to Russia. That would have been the only honest and decent thing to do, since those lands populated by Russians were never ethnically, culturally, or linguistically Russian territories. This holds true not only for Ukraine, but also for Moldova and the Baltic States, which also have a large Russian population that was settled there during Soviet occupation after millions of indigenous inhabitants were either massacred or deported from their ancestral homelands.

The Russian government is not only unconcerned with repatriating ethnic Russians, its “concern” for their situation in those countries is also disingenuous. Russians living in Baltic countries enjoy all the fruits of civilized and prosperous societies created by smart, hard-working, and conscientious Balts, which they could not even dream of obtaining in the country of their ancestors – their “beloved” Russia. They can freely speak their native tongue everywhere and feel secure. They have their own Orthodox churches, built with taxes paid by the indigenous populations, and can freely profess their religion. When their countrymen were in power, they surely did not provide such opportunities to the indigenous population. In addition, there are also many former Soviet soldiers and partisans, so called “heroes of the Great Patriotic War,” who participated in mass killings and deportations of Baltic peoples, now living in those countries and getting pensions from their governments.

Nevertheless, it must be recognized that ethnic Russians living in European post-Soviet republics carry one “burden.” They are obliged to learn the official language of the country in order to be eligible for important posts in government, many other prestigious jobs, and to apply for citizenship. This, however, is enough for the Russian government and media sources to brand those countries “fascist” and rant hysterically about the “oppression of the Russian-speaking population.”

There are, however, other post-Soviet countries with a significant Russian population: the Central Asian states like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, etc. In those countries, Russians do indeed face real oppression, are deprived of many rights as human beings, and sometimes cannot even walk safely on the street. However, they are of no interest to the Putin government and its ideologues since the Central Asian states effectively remain Russian satellites, with analogous despotic and corrupt social structures.

Recently, after grabbing Crimea and poising to attack Eastern Ukraine, Russia became “interested” in the condition of Russians living in Estonia. Voices are being raised in Transnistria, a Russian enclave within Moldova which became “Russian” through the same process that took place in Ukraine and the Baltic States, for Russia to come and save them from the “Moldovan yoke.” Should that happen, will European nationalists also support Russian occupation of those territories on the same grounds as they supported the annexation of Crimea?

One can only wonder what will come next.



  1. Posted March 25, 2014 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Whilst it’s refreshing to finally come across a view that falls short of forced veneration of the Russian bear, the angle of this article is somewhat unhelpful. Whilst it’s undoubtedly true that many nationalists incorrectly believe Moscow to be the antidote to the amoral and American-led West, and that Vladimir Putin will become something of an eager foster parent for European civilisation, vapid moralising is not the way to change their minds.

    What the Crimean predicament really reveals is the level of infighting between European peoples and the moribund nature of nation states in post-modernity. Rather than callously writing off the Ukrainians in the name of childish conceptions of geopolitics, we should be discussing how to foster positive relations between these two proud, Slavic peoples whilst at the same term securing self-determination for the population of the Crimea.

    As the European New Right suggests, we must pursue a policy of regionalisation and practice self-overcoming. Putin, and his gangster-like government, represent petit-bourgeois interests and the same irredentist tendencies that compelled tens of millions of Europeans to slaughter one and other in the early 20th century.

    Thus, Russia is important, but not beyond criticism. Putin is far more desirable than Western leaders, but this doesn’t make him ‘us’ or in any form ‘ideal’. The Russians have dealt the liberal West a bloody nose, but this in of itself doesn’t offer our movement any tangible opportunities.

    • Ulv
      Posted March 26, 2014 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

      The good thing about events in Ukraine is that it is a great example of regionalization. A nationalist faction played a major role in overturning the corrupt but democratically elected government of Yanukovich and the people of Crimea who regard themselves as more Russian than Ukrainian seceded democratically and asked to be merged back into Russia.

      Let’s hope the nationalists can consolidate their grip on power. I read yesterday of how one of these nationalist, one who had fought for the Muslims in Chechniya, was gunned down by Yatsenyuk’s security forces.

      As for the population in Crimea, they do not identify with Ukraine and are better served by merging back into Russia.

  2. WG
    Posted March 25, 2014 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    Ugh, another anti-Russian diatribe. This is getting old. As Dr Sunic has pointed out many times, there are no “White Nationalists” in Europe. There are Russian Nationalists, German Nationalists, French Nationalists, etc. So for the author to use this term to describe participants in the debate over the Crimean situation discredits his argument from the start. Our objective must be to discredit and subvert the modern multiculti, Judeo-American West, and it looks as if a modern, nationalistic, and revitalized Russia is starting to do just that.

    • Bobo
      Posted March 26, 2014 at 4:38 am | Permalink

      ” modern multiculti, Judeo-American West, and it looks as if a modern, nationalistic, and revitalized Russia”

      So, you want to replace “modern multiculti West” with modern multiethnic Russia. Russian federation has the 2nd largest immigrant population of the world, 10-15 % muslim population, Moscow has most billionaires in Europe, they are building 300 m skyscrapers in CBD (using aforementioned immigrants…), for example.

      Personally I’d wish to choose neither USA model or Russian model. Especially not to force it on Europe.

    • Justin Huber
      Posted March 26, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

      Do you think that the Russians care that they once ethnically cleansed the Crimean Peninsula? What about the white population of America and many of the areas we now live in? Once people have established themselves in an area-many times through war, ethnic cleansing etc.-it’s seems almost childish to think that they are just going to pack up and leave because the area USED to belong to some other group. The world just doesn’t work that way. By the way, this is coming from someone who really isn’t a huge fan of Russia.

      • Stronza
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        This brings up the question: who’s really “entitled” to a piece of land in the sense of running the government and making the rules.

        1. The people who originally populated the area (abos).

        2. The people who have been there the longest, who may or may not be #1.

        3. The ethnic group or race of people who cleared the land and established farms that fed everyone including those who did not themselves grow food or clear land. Even if they are not the majority anymore.

        4. The ethnic group or race who, one way or another, now make up the majority of the population.

        5. The ones with the most firepower or favored by them.

        This is just a bit of jousting, because we could discuss the morality of each of the above – that’s what our kind usually does: we try to sort out the morality of a situation instead of trying to be the guys in #5 above.

        Just a bit of grist for the mill, friends.

        • Émile Durand
          Posted March 27, 2014 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

          This is an important issue indeed. Thank you for raising it. And the answer is definitely #3. I have a strong conviction that every person who cares about decency, culture and civilization should think the same. And that is why it is whites, and only whites, who are the rightful owners of North America and Australia. And by the same token Russians do not have a grain of right to claim among European post-Soviet territories where they happen to currently constitute the majority.

          And by the way, choosing #3 does not preclude #5. We should fight for ourselves and try to overpower our enemies (#5) and at the same time be convinced that morality and decency are on our side (#3).

  3. Lew
    Posted March 25, 2014 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    The Russia/Putin supporters have no case. They are, in general, silent as the tomb when it comes to answering these points. Their support for Putin is based on a combination of fallacious reasoning and pure emotion which is understandable. It is something I can relate to. I hate the western powers to such an extent that I have to force myself to remember Putin’s ‘record showing beyond any doubt he is friend.

    • Filip Finodeyev
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

      Russia absolutely has a case. Sevastopol and Crimea are a strategically vital piece of turf that Russia fought several wars to gain and keep. Anglo-Zionist machinations threatened Rissian access to it, so Russia acted accordingly. Russia showed that it is absolutely willing to do so again, and all objectors showed nowhere near the level of resolve.

      The people of Crimea obviously have more affinity for Russia than Ukraine. If Ukrainian nationalists were genuinely motivated by self determination, they would wish the Crimeans well, and be content with a more ethnically pure Ukraine. But they are not, they are motivated by hatred of Russia and power. So they sulk, impotent in the face of the power they hate.

      Durand’s over the top Russophobia is becoming tiresome, and a Frenchman decrying imperialism is a bit farcical.

      • Lew
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

        I agree with you Putin had valid geo-political reasons for seizing Crimea. I wasn’t clear. What I meant was Putin is no ally in the fight for white survival. The people who believe otherwise have no case.

        • 1rw
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

          Putin has actually expressed concern about European fertility rates and instituted pro-natal policies at home. This makes him infinity times better than any western leader in office.

          • Émile Durand
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

            He didn’t “express concern”, he just stated the fact. Non-whites are also well aware of low European fertility and many of them state it explicitly.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

        Russophobia? Sounds like “homophobia”? I.e., one of those “irrational fears” that should be banished from all right-thinking minds. I think that Durand’s article is useful for helping to understand just how reasonable the fears of Russia are in places like Ukraine, Moldova, and the Baltic states, and why Russia’s former imperial possessions might find NATO and EU membership a lesser evil and somewhat reassuring.

        Putin is now reviving Stalin’s public fitness program. Fitness is great, state promoted fitness even better. But wrapping it up with veneration for one of the most evil men in human history is naturally frightening for peoples who were subjugated by Stalin. Again, if I were Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, or Belarus, I would be clamoring for NATO membership or other security guarantees.

        • 1RW
          Posted March 29, 2014 at 2:38 am | Permalink

          I call Durand’s attitude Russophobia because he always paints Russia in the most negative colors, at the same time never mentioning why this or that is so, or that perhaps someone else also had a hand in whatever crime he is hanging on Russia’s neck. For one thing, I take exception to Durand’s assertions of Russian hostility towards the “West”. Russia has had to fight Germany, France, England, Poland, and Sweden on her home turf over the centuries. Some of these western powers have had no qualms against allying with the muslim Turk against fellow Christian Russia. Given this history of antagonism, a certain amount of wariness and hostility on Russia’s part is understandable. Durand’s writing indicates that Russia hates Western Europe because the West is good and the Russians are bad, or something of a similar vein. That is simply dishonest.

          As to Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, et al. clamoring to join NATO, that is both a siren song and a surefire way to bring the hammer down. Belarus, for example, has good relations and military cooperation with Russia, in fact is in a Union with Russia. Of all the countries you mentioned, Belarus has the lowest probability of being invaded by Russia. However, there’s nothing like trying to join an anti-Russia military alliance to make one of these weak neighboring states a target. Regardless of the fairness of the situation, that is a fact of life with powerful neighbors, they will do what they will to you, before any distant would be ‘patrons’ can intervene to save you, if that’s what they really want to do at all. I will refer to Georgia in 2008 and Poland in 1939 as evidence for my case here.

          All these nuances aside, I don’t think Russian imperialist nationalism is necessarily incompatible with White ethno-nationalism. It depends on what one perceives as the goals of a white nationalist. If the goal is for white countries to be free to exist without being forced to assimilate hordes of aliens, then I see no reason why Russia would oppose this goal. Russia has historically had a policy of preserving indigenous people’s rights to their lands and culture, not diluting it into one great muddy whole. I don’t see why Russia would oppose white ethno-states in Europe or North America if their existence did not threaten Russia.

          • Émile Durand
            Posted March 29, 2014 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

            OK, let’s try to analyze.

            I reflect upon Russia based on objective facts from history and the current state of Russian society. If as a result only negative conclusions are obtained, it is certainly not due to me. Indeed, your retort is very liberal style; e.g., how we are constantly being implored to see some hidden “bright light” and “greatness” (apparently very very deeply hidden) in non-whites and their society & culture. And the failure to find something positive upon objective contemplation is always branded as “racism”, “xenophobia”, “bigotry”, “intolerance” etc. By the same token, the failure to find something positive in Russian reality is branded as “Russophobia”; and surprisingly not by liberals but by some (alleged) White Nationalists. Apparently, some White Nationalists have not shaken off the liberal PC influence from themselves. This is very saddening and alarming indeed. And important aim for devoted White Nationalists therefore has to be to correct and improve the theoretical/ideological basis of the movement. That is why I and others write here at C-C.

            Russia has had to fight Germany, France, England, Poland, and Sweden on her home turf over the centuries. Some of these western powers have had no qualms against allying with the muslim Turk against fellow Christian Russia. Given this history of antagonism, a certain amount of wariness and hostility on Russia’s part is understandable.

            Here also let’s go step by step:
            1) In the case of Russia’s wars against Sweden and Poland, any person knowledgebale in history knows that it was Russia who was the only culprit and aggressor. It was Russia who has continuously attacked Poland and Sweden starting from 16th century and more intensely in the end of the 17th – beginning of 18th centuries to obtain territorial gains. Russian atrocities committed in Livonian War (1558-1583) come to mind. When it comes to Great Northern War, it was not only Russia but rather a coalition, which Russia was part of, that fought against Sweden. And again, it was Russia who attacked (and in the end acquired) Sweden’s territory.
            2) Regarding Russia’s war against France and England, I guess you mean Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and Crimean War. Those wars were however the ones among many fought between different European countries throughout centuries. This fact however does not make any European nation have a deep-seated animosity towards Western Civilization. There are of course ressentiments between different European ethnicities, some of which still continue up to this day, but none of those even closely approach the hatred felt by Russians towards Europe.
            In addition, Russia was waging wars against Ottoman Empire not of some deep intimacy with Europe but simply to gain territories. Starting from the 18th century Ottoman Empire was retrating on all fronts and constituted absolutely no danger. By the time of Crimean War it was the sick man of Europe.
            3) I am sure with Germany you mean Second World War, the myth about which is one of the main pillars of modern Russian identity. Of course, also in WWI Russia fought against Germany, but none of the belligerents penetrated each other’s territory significantly so we will leave that aside. Now, back to WWII. Together with the “Holocaust” narrative, the alleged brutality of German troops on the Eastern Front is probably the most blatant falsification in modern history. Closer examination of facts reveals that most (if not all) of those atrocities on the Soviet soil were not committed by Germans, but rather by Russians against their own folk. Those 20 miliion or more deaths sufferred by Soviet Union in WWII were not caused by the alleged cruelty of Germans. They were caused by the scorched earth policy of the Red Army and the sabotage actions of Soviet partisans who were blowing the buildings, destroying facilities and killing their own people just to prevent them from being captured by Germans. Another reason for the high death toll is that the Soviet government was sending their people to war like cattle without regard to human losses. Actually, Germans had more empathy to Soviet civilians and combatants than did the Soviet government. The advance of Germany into Soviet Union was performed in a strictly civilized manner like European powers were fighting each other for centuries, strictly obeying the European practice of civilized warfare. Hitler never aimed to eradicate Slavs as is often being alleged (especially by Russians themselves) nor to commit any atrocities against the civilian population. And as I said above such atrocities were not in the end committed by Germans but rather by Russians against their own folk and then later at a steadily increasing scale of barbarity against other European nations.
            Hitler’s aim was neither to destroy the Russian state nor Russians as a people. His aim in Russia was to create a European nation state friendly to Germany. In this regard, it was actually Vlasov and his division who were the true heroes fighting for a European Russia and who should have been venerated by Russians, if they have had a European identity. General Vlasov fought for a European Russia, the Russia that was created by European settlers starting from 18th century and which gave birth to the phenomenon called “Russian Culture”. And here is probably to the most flagrant evidence of a deep antagonism of Russian identity against European identity. The fact that in Russia General Vlasov is regarded as the most abominable traitor but the barbarian hordes who have committed the greatest crimes in history against the white race are being venerated as heroes conclusively manifests that Russians are in a deep antagonism against the European Civilization and bear a deep-seated hatred against it.

            Durand’s writing indicates that Russia hates Western Europe because the West is good and the Russians are bad, or something of a similar vein. That is simply dishonest.

            Maybe you don’t notice it but in these sentences you manifestly prove my assertions about Russian identity. Any true White Nationalist should be convinced that the West (by which is meant the civilization created by whites) is always good in any confrontation with another entity, without any reservations. If not, then what are we fighting for? But your expression indicates that deep inside you contrapose European identity against Russian identity, questioning the goodness of the former. If you would have considered yourself a white European you would not have been offended by my critique of Russia in the first place, and would not have had reservations about the goodness of Western Civilization.

            I am writing critiques of Russia because as a White Nationalist I care about the well-being of whites and only whites. Therefore, I want to open the eyes of my fellow comrades to the realities of which apparently many of them are not aware. Their empathical attitude towards Russia is not the only delusion in White Nationalism, however. For example, lately Jobbik’s leader Gabor Vona began fawning over Turkey and called Turks and Hungarians brothers! This is of course even way more nonsensical than the delusions about Russia. However, it does not present any danger to the White Nationalist movement at large since hardly anyone shares his opinions on this matter (and assuming that he truly believes in what he says). Moreover, a good critique was already published. But the grave delusions about Russia are shared by large parts of White Nationalist movement, and they are sincere. That is why they have to be dispelled relentlessly.

            As I already mentioned in other comments, white Russians who consider themselves European and want to be considered as such have to renounce their Russian identity. And if they are honest and really empathize with Europeans in their struggle, they have to warn them against Russia and against falling into the trap of bestowing false hopes on it, instead of accusing people like me who try to help and tell the bare truth of “Russophobia”. It may be a difficult step but it has to be taken. And they can still feel pride for example in the Russian literature, Russian classical music but in the context of them being the products of a wider European (i.e. white) Culture.
            Indeed, I deeply empathize with those white Russians who are imbued with European culture, consider themselves white Europeans and nothing else, but are trapped in Russia, that “Eurasiatic” hellhole. It must be very difficult for them to live in an essentially alien and anti-white country. In relative numbers they are of course a powerless minority within Russia, however in absolute numbers they can be a significant addition for the white cause. In addition, I feel sorry that there are also many white Russians who are lost for the white cause because they subscribe to the anti-European Russian identity.

          • 1rw
            Posted March 30, 2014 at 6:10 am | Permalink

            @ Durand
            Wow, what a rant. Just as deluded as your article, but what it lacks in truth and logic, it makes up for in verbosity. I’ll try to be brief in my response

            Wars- Russia fought many wars with the west, and continues to do so, though in today’s subtle way. This naturally instills a suspicion of the adversary. I don’t think that it means that Russians hate Europeans or Americans. Your assertion that Russians committed atrocities is blatantly one-sided. Every side is capable of committing atrocities. The same goes for your assertion that the Germans are not to blame for 20 million Soviet casualties, but the Russians themselves. A million people starved in Leningrad alone due to the siege. Germans took hundreds of thousands of POWs that they then starved, also practiced scorched earth tactics when retreating, and otherwise behaved like they were at war. Germans did not confine their bad behavior to the Eastern Front, there are documented incidents of German atrocities on the West as well. I challenge you to find an army that didn’t occasionally misbehave when fighting.

            Your statement that Hitler intended to create a Russian state friendly to Germany is ridiculous. Hitler demonstrated contempt for the Slavs on many occasions in his writings. Chapter 13 of Mein Kampf outlines his plan to seize Russia’s territory for Germany, relegating the natives to slavery or extermination. He wrote that the Russians were incapable of running their country, and depended upon a Germanic elite to maintain their civilization. I can’t see him doing anything other than bringing that assertion to life once the war was won. As far as Vlasov being allowed to fight, well, Germany needed men, and Hitler was willing to make tactically expedient decisions, he’d allied with Stalin, hadn’t he? You also make no mention of Churchil’s militarily pointless firebombing of Dresden and other cities, a true holocaust if there ever was one, while accusing Russians of atrocities. Typical one sided singling out of Russia for bad behavior that every other combatant engaged in as well.

            Finally, I believe you are engaging in a bit of projection when you delve into my mind and claim that I counter pose the European and the Russian identities. I don’t, Russians are a subset of Europeans, as are French, Germans, et al. It is you who relentlessly, and ridiculously sets the two against each other. White civilizations are good, in my opinion, the best. They are not infallible though, only an infantile fanatic holds such a position. If the 20th century showed anything it’s that Whites are very capable of slaughtering each other by the tens of millions for dubious reasons. The current state of White civilization (if we even have it anymore), is rather sad, we are led by anti-white sociopaths, and unfortunately most of our fellow whites, while not necessarily look up to the leaders, sincerely believe in the idiotic platitudes they endlessly spew on TV. Given this state of affairs, can you blame WNs for looking up to a country whose leader can actually give an intelligent speech about what he’s doing and why, and uses his military to defend the interests of his people, instead of sending them on idiotic adventures half a world away?

            • Émile Durand
              Posted March 30, 2014 at 11:25 am | Permalink

              Wow, what a rant. Just as deluded as your article, but what it lacks in truth and logic, it makes up for in verbosity.

              A very convenient, trite and frankly very liberal style retort. One can go on endlessly like this. But I am sure that there are many sober and logically thinking readers who will appreciate and benefit from the facts and the logical conclusions presented in my previous comment.

              A million people starved in Leningrad alone due to the siege. Germans took hundreds of thousands of POWs that they then starved

              Siege and a likely accompanying blockade of a city is a common method implemented in warfare and is in line with European civilized warfare practice. And here again it is not the German blockade of the city but rather the actions of the Soviet government are to blame. The inhabitants of the city were not evacuated and the city stubbornly was not ceded to Germans although it was clear that the prolongation of the siege would cost many human lives. Any civilized European country would have long ceded the city in those circumstances. But as I mentioned in my previous comment, Soviet government did not have any regard for human lives and treated its own people as cannon fodder. Had the city been ceded, then there wouldn’t have been any prolonged blockade and human lives would have been saved. Very simple. And surely, as it always was during the war, Germans would have treated the inhabitants of the city more humanely than Russians themselves did.
              Regarding the POWs, they did not starve due to some exceptional German mistreatment but rather due to shortage of food and medicine which was lacking for Germans themselves. Whole Germany was then starving to death.

              Chapter 13 of Mein Kampf outlines his plan to seize Russia’s territory for Germany, relegating the natives to slavery or extermination

              Hitler’s aim was to acquire more territory rich in raw materials and Russia of course was the only favorable terrain. Never though does he mention an intention to “exterminate Slavs” or “use them as slaves”. Acquiring new territory does not necessitate extermination or brutal treatment of the indigenous population. In case of a successful conquest, the “worst” likely scenario could have been the transfer of some (or maybe all) of the Russian population to the remainder of the Russian territories.

              You also make no mention of Churchil’s militarily pointless firebombing of Dresden and other cities, a true holocaust if there ever was one, while accusing Russians of atrocities

              Of course, Churchill, Harris, Roosevelt were abominable criminals and the carpet bombings of German cities were outrageous crimes. No doubt about that. But firstly, our topic here is Russia and not WWII history. Secondly, racially conscious whites in the U.S. and U.K. do not venerate those people and condemn them outright. However, the vast majority of Russians, including the nationalists, venerate the Red Army soldiers. That is the main and very crucial difference.

              In conclusion, from what you say I can see you empathize with the struggle of whites. But then instead of arguing with me, maybe you could be helping to enlighten western White Nationalists about Russian reality and warn them against the country they bestow false hopes on and its leader Vladimir Putin. Yes, their fawning over Russia and Putin betrays their own despair and lack of confidence in themselves. However, I argue that white European people retain the potential for a revival. And for that revival we have to find power and inspiration only in ourselves and our own rich tradition, and stop looking for help or spiritual guidance from outside.

          • 1rw
            Posted March 30, 2014 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

            @ Durand
            I repeat, you are delusional. This is not “liberal” sneering. This is a response to your attitude. Your own words betray you. Hitler couldn’t have possibly imagined that conquering Russian territories would have been humane or peaceful. Russians showed time and again that they will fight to the last drop of blood for their land, an attitude I (and I think any other sane person) cannot begrudge them. This is why Russians venerate the Red Army’s victory, because they pushed back an invader that wanted to steal their ancestral lands. If you can’t understand that, then you are no nationalist, you are a simply a Russophobe.

          • Armor
            Posted March 30, 2014 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

            Émile Durand about the siege of Leningrad: “And here again it is not the German blockade of the city but rather the actions of the Soviet government are to blame. The inhabitants of the city were not evacuated and the city stubbornly was not ceded to Germans although it was clear that the prolongation of the siege would cost many human lives. Any civilized European country would have long ceded the city in those circumstances. But as I mentioned in my previous comment, Soviet government did not have any regard for human lives and treated its own people as cannon fodder.”

            Something similar can be said about the French armed “resistance” during WWII. “Resistance” sounds like an inversion, since France had actually declared WWII. It is like the Jews who claim they are resisting “antisemitism”. Actually, we are the ones resisting them. Anyway, Germany had resisted more strongly than expected, and France was now occupied. It was impossible for the self-styled French “resistance” to achieve anything militarily. Terrorist attacks would only lead to reprisals, preferably on identified communists.

            After the war, De Gaulle, the Jews and the communists would present themselves and their “resistance” movement as heroes. But they had not changed the course of the war, and they were responsible for the execution of their own friends. The German firing squads can not be blamed on “the barbarity of Nazism”. Besides, part of the “resistance” movement was Jewish. From their point of view, the more French people killed in German reprisals, the better it was. It would whip up antigermanism.

  4. Slate Slabrock
    Posted March 25, 2014 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    Nationalists who sided with the West and did the fighting on the Maidan are already being executed by their allies. So clearly that wasn’t the correct choice. They never had a chance, as we suspected all along.

    Meanwhile, Crimean Russians have achieved their aims quickly and decisively, leaving a failed state where many people hate them to join a motherland that just happens to be much wealthier and more stable. The transition is going to be virtually seamless for them, they won’t even lose their government jobs.

    So in this case, there was no choice at all. Putin worked to benefit a group of Russians and bring them back home. The West used some nationalists, betrayed them and murdered one of their leaders. I doubt he’ll be the last.

    Additionally, mainstream sources agree that the police and the protestors on the Maidan were being shot by the same bullets in the same places, probably by the same mystery snipers. So the reaction of the Yanukovych government to the disturbances was relatively measured and some kind of outside force was stirring up the violence. Yanukovych was no doubt corrupt and weak, but it does change the narrative substantially. His response was probably a lot softer than the response you’d see to such a violent protest in the U.S..

    Maybe Putin deployed the snipers to justify a Russian invasion of Crimea, but I doubt it. He had no need to do so because if Yanukovych held on to power the base in Crimea would have remained secure and Putin would not have had to take risky measures in defying the international community. The effect of the sniper attacks was to destroy the legitimacy of Yanukovych’s government and ultimately lead to his downfall. So if the snipers came from an outside force, it was probably the enemy or the opposition supported by the enemy. Putin might be ruthless enough to deploy them, but he was playing defense, so they didn’t work in his favor.

    We should not trust Putin, but we were right to warn the Ukrainian nationalists to be very skeptical of their “allies” and there is nothing wrong with cheering for Putin when he foiled another enemy operation and improved the situation of a bunch of his countrymen, as long as we don’t get carried away and project our values onto him.

    We should be ethno-nationalists, but not ethno-nationalist fundamentalists. The survival of Europeans as a genetically intact people is the most important goal, not the idealized vision of a pretty little map with each group in its own ethno-state. It may be that some individual ethno-states are too weak to stand alone in the current environment and that it is better to remain under the protection of a greater power, instead of risking everything on an incredibly low percentage shot at creating a nationalist Ukraine out of a coup orchestrated by the enemy.

    Sad to say, but the bravery of Ukrainian Nationalists was used against them, better that they had stayed home. They were only disposable cannon fodder. The two forces at play here were Russia (defending its sphere of influence) and the enemy, trying to tighten the noose around Russia’s neck. They just didn’t figure Putin would be willing to change the rules of the game and grab Crimea outright. It’s hardly a great victory for him though, more of last gamble to avoid a very serious defeat. The rubicon has been crossed.

  5. BourgeoisReactionary
    Posted March 25, 2014 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

    Crimea and Eastern Ukraine Were Never Ethnically Russian Throughout History

    “Ethnic Russians became the majority in Crimea only after the ethnic cleansing of Crimean Tatars, Greeks, and Armenians by Stalin, which culminated in hundreds of thousands of them being deported to Central Asia during WWII. “

    The title of this section of the essay is clearly bunk. It should read Crimea and Eastern Ukraine Became Ethnically Russian Only Recently.

    So Emile Durand believes that Russia has no right to intercede on behalf of Russian people because this land was once populated by Turks? I guess he believes Whites in America also have no right to retain a claim to North America because it belonged to indigenous peoples not so long ago? How many lands are presently occupied by their original inhabitants?

    Durand argues Russia defending the interests and lands held by Russian peoples is “imperialism” but it isn’t; it is “nationalism”. And Durand’s objections to the Russian state having people of non-white ethnicity notwithstanding, these Russians whom Putin is defending are White.

    How many times does Counter-Currents intend to recycle these speciaous claims that Russia acting on the behalf of ethnic Russian peoples is “imperialism” or not beneficial to White interests? If I need to read this sort of casuistry I’ll turn to the New Right thinkers who don’t care for the White interests or I’ll crack open a book by Tim Wise.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 26, 2014 at 2:31 am | Permalink

      All this translates to “Wow. Just wow.” I am glad you got it off your chest, though.

  6. Andrew
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 1:28 am | Permalink

    For me, its hard to oppose a majority Russian region becoming part of Russia, and this is probably for emotional reasons which I suspect many people share. The idea of a strong leader defying the decadent west and gathering his racial kinsmen together under one banner certainly strikes a resounding chord. This author is addressing the issue beyond the emotional appeal with the correct query that should always be applied to political questions: “Is it good for the Whites?” Its true that Stalin’s crimes harmed us considerably, that Putin is no White Nationalist (rather an Imperialist generally opposed to racial nationalism).

    That is a difficult question to evaluate. Generally, the separation of ethnic groups into their own nation-states is a good thing. Opposition to the current Western Internationalist regime, and discrediting it, is generally a good thing (it definitely feels good). Destabilizing the international order and moving world politics back a little towards its natural state of might is right might not be a good thing (seeing that power is shifting continually to the non-White world).

    My thoughts are that overall, the situation is good for White Nationalism, because it gives increased legitimacy to ethnic separation and weakens the perception of American/EU power, which must be eventually discredited in order for White Nationalist groups to rise. So while Putin is not the leader we yearn for, and the growth of the Russian empire is not beneficial for us, the collateral affects do seem to be.

    “I wish to argue, however, that White Nationalist support for the Russian annexation of Crimea amounts to a ratification of Stalin’s crimes.”

    I think this is true but it is not conceivable that those crimes could be reversed with new population shifts. Unfortunately it is a situation where the question is what to do now with the current reality.

    “With the logic applied to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, those districts then have to be ceded to Algeria and Turkey, with more parts of France, Germany, and other European countries being candidates for future secession. ”

    I think it would be far better for those regions to secede than to absorb those populations into the European gene pool. Its not attractive to cede regions so long within the European sphere, with such rich histories, to non-Whites. The best solution of course would be a Stalinesque population transfer (without the associated cruelty), but barring that Europeans would be much better off in truncated states than racial merging or being forced to adopt multiculturalism.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 26, 2014 at 2:18 am | Permalink

      1. Virtually the entire map of Eastern and Central Europe is record of Stalin’s crimes, as well as those of Churchill and Roosevelt and before them the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Saint Germain. It is completely understandable why these nations should wish to right historical wrongs, rectify borders, and expel alien colonists. I just don’t see how that can be done without increasing ethic tensions between European groups, so from the perspective of long-term particular and pan-European genetic interests, I think it preferable to accept certain facts on the ground, no matter how unjust their origins, e.g., the present German-Polish border is a historical crime, but Germany and Poland are relatively ethnically homogeneous, and rolling back to pre-1939 borders would create real ethnic problems.

      2. If Mother Russia wishes to gather her children home, then she needs to buy them train tickets to the motherland, not send troops into neighboring countries. I think it is insane that the United States is pledged to go to war to secure the borders of the Baltic states, but I completely understand why the Baltic countries want such guarantees, given their restive Russian colonists and past history of Russian subjugation. If I were Ukraine, I would be eager for such guarantees as well. If Russia does not want NATO at her doorstep, perhaps she should repatriate her nationals and stop verbally abusing her neighbors as fascists for the slightest acts of national self-assertion.

      3. The Crimean annexation is a fait accompli, but yes, the referendum was almost certainly fraudulent and conducted in bad faith. Ukraine can at least take solace in the loss of a large number of Russians and virtually all of her Muslims. Sometimes one must subtract territory to add ethnic homogeneity. By this standard, Ukraine got the better end of the deal.

      4. Post WWII non-European colonists in Europe proper must simply be deported. Humanely if possible, brutally if they force the matter, but they must all go. If we can’t stand for that, then we stand for nothing and deserve nothing. We owe non-Europeans less consideration than fellow Europeans in this regard. Poland can keep Silesia, but Turkey does not get one city block of Germany. I think that can be defended on solid ethnonationalist grounds.

      • wolf911
        Posted March 26, 2014 at 11:11 am | Permalink

        In support of this comment and article, finally an analysis without the Putin is our Saviour wishful thinking which makes any neutral view of historic events and logic impossible.

      • eiszeit
        Posted March 26, 2014 at 11:12 am | Permalink

        “Post WWII non-European colonists in Europe proper must simply be deported. Humanely if possible, brutally if they force the matter, but they must all go.”

        The vast majority of Whites in Europe will fight for the muds who are destroying their very nations. That’s how deep the jew brainwashing is. If you want to get rid of the muds in Europe you’re also going to have to wage war against the Judaized leftist Whites. This means a lot of dead Whites as well; in other words, civil war between nationalists and self-hating leftist scum who are the foot soldiers of judea.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted March 26, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

        The most obviously fraudulent aspect of the referendum was that there was no option to maintain the status quo.

      • Razvan
        Posted March 26, 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

        Practically all European countries are nuclear capable by themselves alone. Including the smaller ones like Estonia, and Letonia. You don’t even need to question about Germany’s capability. Ukraine gave away its entire nuclear arsenal instead of U.S., and Russia security guarantees. As it can be seen, these guarantees are pretty much void. Non-proliferation should have a cost.

        Without those international security promises we are going to live interesting times.

        These international (U.S., Britain, and France) security promises meant many billions of dollars spent on military equipment, mainly from U.S. as the premier and favored arms exporter.

        If the U.S. don’t or can’t keep their promises it will be the end of the dollar, and most probably a very dirty war in Europe, West versus East, China awaiting to easily pick up the rest of Asia from Russia.

        Those who argue that Russia is right to deport “non-whites” from Crimea should in fact ask where are those “Tatars” and “Armenians” deported because many of them are landing in the supposedly Russian government.
        Lavrov – half Armenian – Foreign Affairs
        Kolokoltsev – that one looks like well fed Chinese, (his predecessor was Rashid Nurgaliyev – Tatar origin) – Internal Affairs
        Sergey Shoygu – Defence – (Tuvin origin)

        One should ask why the armed ministers are lead by Asians.

        What do we want? To live separately and in peace with other races/peoples, or to “integrate” them. In my opinion it is the Russian version for invade the world, invite the world American policy.

        In fact this Crimea crisis it’s a saving face operation for Putin. He lost Ukraine, he antagonized Ukrainians for another one hundred years, but got another ethnically and racially mixed Russian speaking population (they are not Russians but “Russophones”).

        • Émile Durand
          Posted March 26, 2014 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

          “Kolokoltsev – that one looks like well fed Chinese”

          Actually, his look is well representative of that of an average Russian. Another good example is Yuriy Luzhkov – former mayor of Moscow.

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Posted March 27, 2014 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

            The thing is many East Europeans do look somewhat mongolian, with somewhat flattened faces, broad cheekbones and slanted eyes, but this even occurs in central Europe. Look for example at pictures of the German chancellors Adenauer, Erhard and Brandt.

            • Émile Durand
              Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

              As I already mentioned in another comment thread, the essential point to be reckoned with is not the Asiatic looks of Russians but rather how they regard themselves. Those East and Central Europeans who may look somewhat Asiatic will never consider themselves anything except as white Europeans. The same holds true for Greeks and South Italians for example. Although those ethnic groups have some Near-Eastern admixture, they also do not subscribe to any other identity than white European. The ethnic identity of a Greek therefore is not necessarily in conflict with larger white interests. The Russian identity is.

  7. mysmackan
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 4:17 am | Permalink

    I think mr Durant should get his facts checked before printing. The russian census of 1897 shows 35,6% tatars, 33,1% russians and 11,8% ukrainians. The remainder were mostly germans, jews, greeks and armenians. In 1939, before the deportations, the census shows 49,6% russians, 19,4% tatars and 13,7% ukrainians. It’s true that Crimea doesn’t have a long tradition as a russian area. It was a independent Khanate until 1783, that plagued the eastern slavs for centuries and brought millions of whites to slavery. But I do think that Russia has a better claim to the area than Ukraine and I do think that the crimeans themselves should be able to decided wich state to belong. And they have decided. Even if the referendum had some flaws it still clearly showed what the people of Crimea wants.

  8. george
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    “yes, the referendum was almost certainly fraudulent”

    Greg, do you have a source for this assertion? Are you quite certain it was fraud? How so? Where can I find the evidence?

    And why in bad faith?

  9. Maaldweb
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    @Greg Johnson

    In a previous comment, in one of the other articles dealing with the Crimean issue, I mentioned the fact that Ukrainian nationalists volunteered to fight along with muslim Chechens. They were not muslim Tatars but ‘christian’ and white Ukrainians whose hatred for Russians surpasses everything. here are some evidence

    We can of course doubt the sincerity of RT but I doubt that the videos can be proven false.
    That’s the kind of people who lead, at least part of, the Ukrainian nationalists. People who are ready to ally themselves with the Turkic Chechens, muslims and whahhabis just to kill white Russians. I personally understand the grievances of the Ukrainian nationalists, but it is painfully obvious that a lot of them hate white Russians more than anything else.

    Muzytcko is dead now by the actions of a government he helped install. He was used and discarded. And to be honest if half of the stuff RT says about him is correct I doubt I would like that person as a neighboor. he looks like the living embodiment of a Hollywood nazi, a gangster, a sexual pervert (there are videos of him getting kicked in the face by prostitutes, obviously leaked by intell. agencies or his rivals) and a sociopath.

    Something tells me the same will happen to many others of the West’s cannofodder who really thought that between Russia and Judeo-NATO/US the latter is preferable.

    A few things on the article

    1. Durand refers to the Crimean Greeks as a persecuted minority by Stalin. That is correct. it fails though to mention that the remaining Greek community of Crimea campaigned in favour of yes and obviously voted yes in the referendum because immediately after the coup they started receiving death threats and the Kiev government wanted to pass a law which would criminilise dual citizenship (which many of the Crimean Greeks hold).

    2. All this talk about Russians who enjoy the work of hard working Balts sounds a bit naive for anyone slightly knowledgeable of the situation. There was a real estate bubble in Latvia and in the other baltic countries and a fake economic boom. Their economy is now destroyed thanx to the advices of the WB/IMF/EU and now NATO demands them to dismantle their armies and re0rganise them in units who will provide medical and logistic support for other NATO units. So basically it leaves them defenceless to any future Russian threat.

    3. For someone who presents himself as a supporter of white nationalism Durand’s not-so concealed hatred of Russians is really puzzling. Someone should inform him that Russian Slavs are white too and that the Cold War is over. His articles remind me of the right-wing rhetoric of that forgotten era where anticommunism was often mixed with antislavism.

    4. Putin will use liberal rhetoric calling his opponents fascist and anti-semitic to get support. But it is obviously a cynical move. I am surprised some people here are unable to see his bluff. Apparently leftists, liberals and the US political elite are able to understand that he is bluffing…. I am not saying Putin is a white nationalist, but it is equally naive to think that he is the Russian version of John Kerry.

    • Émile Durand
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

      “All this talk about Russians who enjoy the work of hard working Balts sounds a bit naive for anyone slightly knowledgeable of the situation. There was a real estate bubble in Latvia and in the other baltic countries and a fake economic boom. Their economy is now destroyed”

      The (alleged) temporary economic hardships experienced by Baltic countries cannot be compared to the permanent wretchedness of Russian conditions which are basically no different than those in many non-white Third-World countries. If we are to point fingers at Latvia, for that matter France and UK also experience economic harships. Now will you argue that France suddenly became as poor and backward as Russia? Indeed, even the bankrupt Greece is still doing better than the “resurgent” Russia. The economic problems currently experienced by many European countries are simply not of the same league with the permanent wretchedness of Russian life. I am sure Balts will overcome these temporary hardships as they have overcome even more terrible adversities throughout history, with their tenacity, dedication and hard work.

      For someone who presents himself as a supporter of white nationalism Durand’s not-so concealed hatred of Russians is really puzzling. Someone should inform him that Russian Slavs are white too and that the Cold War is over. His articles remind me of the right-wing rhetoric of that forgotten era where anticommunism was often mixed with antislavism.”

      It is absolutely wrong to conflate Slavs with Russians. Anti-Russianism does not mean anti-Slavism. On the contrary, I am empathizing and am siding with our fellow white Slavs (i.e., Ukrainians and other East Europeans) against the encroachments of an alien entity, i.e. Russia, as any decent and consistent White Nationalist should do. A very pertinent comparison and a good guidance when one contemplates about Russians: Russians are nearly as Slav as Brazilians are white. Very simple. This of course gives those Russians who are white Europeans and want to be considered as such a choice. They should renounce their Russian identity. That is a prerequisite for them to acquire a white European identity. In the same way as it is a prerequisite for Latin Americans.
      Finally it is also utterly misleading to consider Cold War as a mere confrontation between different economic systems. It was first and foremost a deep confrontation between the Western Civilization and the Asiatic Russian world. It may not have been regarded as such in the West, since at the time of Cold War racial thinking and race realism were already criminalized there. However, Russians felt that way deep inside, though not explicitly but rather subconsciously. Those white Russians who felt an affinity to Europe either have already escaped at that time or were being brutally executed.

      “Putin will use liberal rhetoric calling his opponents fascist and anti-semitic to get support. But it is obviously a cynical move. I am surprised some people here are unable to see his bluff.”

      Blacks, Arabs, Turks, Latinos etc are also using exclusively liberal rhetoric in their confrontation against whites. And surely they are also bluffing. I have to reiterate; the essential point is that Putin’s interests, and by extension those of his supporters who constitute the overwhelming majority of Russians, are in conflict with those of whites. And of course, he will use liberal rhetoric as a weapon against white Europeans in the same way as all non-whites do.

  10. Posted March 26, 2014 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    I think this article has a dangereous component. I have noticed curiosities in a few places from Alternative Right advertising a Ukrainian blog that asserts that Golden Dawn is being paid with Russian money to favour Putin’s actions in Ukraine, through to some asserting Putin’s corruption, to a sub text in some publications about the plucky little Ukraine taking independence from the successor to Stalinism (with a few references to the good days of the Nazis coming to the Ukraine and their politics being revived in the Ukrainian nationaloists of today).

    I would suspect that there are some who would have us mobilized against Putinism. It might be that just as the Us regime tolerates ‘fascists’ in its chosen governmnet for Ukraine, so the same forces would have us opposed to the ‘positive’ side of Putinism which is its challenge to New World Order politics.

    I agree that Putin is not a nationalist as we would mean it and he has suppressed nationalist organisations; his Eurasian Union if perfected may have the impact of multiracializing Great Russia and other Slavic lands unless borders are closed; there is a case for a Ukrainian state. However, the subtle line of some would turn us back into Russophobes and that would be wrong too.

    I think we need to be very direct.

    It would seem that the patriots of Svoboda and Right Sector have been co-opted into supporting a liberal revolution in Ukraine. This too would bring disaster to the country. It has been the history of a lot of Ukrainian nationalist groups from the Cold War and beyond that they grasp at seeming ‘options’ and end up short changed.

    Certainly, Ukraine should be independent. The sheer problems of winning independence are shown from the historical past when the country found itself the plaything of the two great powers of yesterday – Hitler;s Germany and Stalin’s USSR and torn between the two ideologies of fascism and communism.

    It is difficult today as well. For us ‘independence’ should mean that won by true nationalists, not the fake nominal independence acquired by liberals who then immerse the country in the EU and NATO. That means the nationalists must have an independent line and win a genuine free Ukraine. How they deal later with (hopeful) a future new Europe of Peoples and perhaps some sort of Russian union would be a matter for them.

    However, there is evidence that Right Sector is not the genuine article. Svoboda is a different thing because it has had contact with European nationalist organisations. I have taken some guide from the European nationalists.

    I noted that, Forza Nuova and Fiamma Tricolore in Italy have warned Svoboda not to be taken in by joining Europe and so forth. They have suggested that Ukraine’s real enemy lies in the institutions of globalism. I would say that if these respected groups say ‘be cautious’, then I would too. The Germans in the NPD have said pretty much the same.

    But most of the European nationalist ire was directed at the group called Right Sector. It talks ‘extreme right’ language but confers with Senator John McCain, denounces racism (and the obligatory anti Semitism), toasts the Israeli ambassador (with whom it now pledges to monitor racism in Ukraine) and so forth. I would say that if the communist theory of fascism was right, so I can pinch the language – these people would be the thug force of the capitalist regime. I think that this group came from virtually nowhere and was much more ideologically weaker than Svovoda and has just been swallowed. Once it has done its job, the system will discard it.

    We have seen the capitalist IMF pledge loans in exchange for the usual pledges over the resources trade and the notorious oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been in Ukraine conferring with the new regime there. Undoubtedly, he is the vanguard of the traditional capitalists and possibly too – the Zionist fraction of capital. I believe he has met with all the minsters as a symbol of the stage-managed anti Russia aspect of the revolution.

    If the genuine nationalists can break soon with the liberals, it would be to the good. If they cannot, then regardless of how they look and sound, they are co-opted vessels.

    As that trite adage says: time will tell.

  11. Simon Lote
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    Greg, are you still planning on the writing your article ‘The Slow Cleanse’. I ask because point 4 seems at odds with what you have previously said on the matter and I would be happy if you could clarify.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 26, 2014 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

      I see your point. Our goal should be just as I stated it so baldly. Where I differ from the race war fantasists is that I think that goal can be brought about humanely and with a minimum of social disruption. The essay is still in note form. I will try to publish it next week.

  12. Bruce
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    The question of Russia also has to be considered on strategic grounds, not just ideological or racial. What would happen if White Nationalists came to power in a European country? It would very likely result in a civil war. At the very least, the country would be targeted with sanctions, isolation, “color revolution” style subversion and sabotage that would aim at a coup, etc.

    Say, for example, a Nationalist Germany came into being. Israel and Turkey have extremely powerful militaries, not to mention the USA having military bases on its territory. If there are no other Nationalist governments in Europe, who will come to Germany’s aid if not Russia? Sure, Russia is motivated by its own perceived state/imperial interests, not by racial solidarity or anything else. But our interests coincide, why would we not seek an alliance, especially when we are so weak at present? All the signs I see say that Russia would be totally open to such an alliance.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 26, 2014 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      I agree with your basic analysis, but you have not considered France. The reason why France, for me, is potentially pivotal for Europe’s salvation is her independent nuclear deterrent. If France went nationalist, the “West” could not give her the Serbia treatment because of her nuclear deterrent. Libya was destroyed and North Korea was not simply because the former lacked the bomb and the latter has it.

      • Tom
        Posted March 26, 2014 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

        The nuclear thing is pretty irrelevant, as a strong and advanced western country could build a nuclear weapon in five minutes if it set its mind to it. A nationalist government getting the Serbia treatment in Germany, Poland, or elsewhere would quickly go nuclear.

        • 1rw
          Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

          Speaking as a nuclear engineer, I say you are naive in the extreme. Creating a nuclear deterrent would take months if not years. First you must acquire highly enriched uranium or plutonium. This alone will take time and know how that may not exist in the country. Then you must assemble it into a weapon. Finally you must have a viable delivery system that can deter a truly determined US. Your weapon will likely be crude one, so it will be either heavy or weak.

          Remember, in the meantime foreign intelligence may well detect your efforts and give your foes causus belli

    • eiszeit
      Posted March 26, 2014 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      Any nationalist government coming to power in Europe is a long shot. First of all, they would never come to power democratically. If a nationalist party ever gained enough popularity to pose a threat to the non-nationalist parties in an election, the government would simply outlaw the nationalist party on the basis that it is hostile to “democracy,” “civil rights,” etc. Basically the jewish government of whatever country it is would undemocratically outlaw a nationalist party in order to protect democracy. In case we haven’t learned yet, the modern definition of “democracy” is a nation where jews control everything.

      Secondly, if a nationalist party ever did take over, it would be immediately and ruthlessly bombed by NATO for being a threat to the liberal west (jews). If it isn’t bombed then crippling sanctions would be implemented against it, and all other nationalist parties throughout Europe would be outlawed and imprisoned. This is all assuming, of course, that the nationalist party leaders would be able to survive the inevitable mossad assassinations (Mossad, of course, has free reign throughout the jew-controlled West).

      Third, don’t expect this new nationalist government to receive any aid from Russia. It’s actually in Putin’s interest that the West dies from immigration and diversity, as that would mean that Russia would be dominant on the continent. Putin has no love for Russian nationalists; you think he’d have any sympathy for foreign nationalists? Putin is just another shill.

      Fourth and finally, do Whites even have what it takes do what is necessary to take their nations back? Do Whites have the merciless that will be REQUIRED to rid their nations of traitors, jews, non-Whites, etc? That’s the most urgent question: do we have any racial fire left, or are we biologically depleted?

  13. Tim Askin
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Looking to the west Asians for salvation from American/EU nihilism is equal to asking someone to choose between two flavors of KoolAid for a healthy way to quench your thirst.
    As has been pointed out here at CC and elsewhere, Russia is a multicultural, multi-ethnic, conglomeration outside European Civilization(whats left of it anyway). They may be expediting the fall of US/EU dominance but all Identitarian/Nationalists should see Russia as a convenient co-belligerent rather than a leader/ally.
    Reading Dugin, I see a distinction in Russians like all Asians. That is that they know they are on the outside of European Civilization. Better to play the two bullies off against each other than stand in either ones cold shadow.

    • Émile Durand
      Posted March 26, 2014 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      As a supplement to your comment here are some verses from a famous Russian poet – Alexander Blok:

      You are millions. We are hordes and hordes and hordes.
      Try and take us on!
      Yes, we are Scythians! Yes, we are Asians –
      With slanted and greedy eyes!

      Throughout the woods and thickets
      In front of pretty Europe
      We will spread out! We’ll turn to you
      With our Asian muzzles.

      • Razvan
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

        Excellent find. I’m so sorry I lost a Mayakovsky volume with poems of the same caliber.

        Many people think that what they did in Europe was due to Ehrenburg instigations.
        Blok died in 1921 and Mayakovsky in 1930. So nothing to do with war excesses or anything else.
        It’s a broader anti-Western hated and envy against a supposedly decadent West.

        • Émile Durand
          Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

          “It’s a broader anti-Western hated and envy against a supposedly decadent West.”

          Exactly. And this is where the greatest delusion of Russophilic White Nationalists lies. Russians will never empathize with the struggle of whites, simply because they bear a deep-seated hatred against Western Civilization. The best historical parallel I can think of is the hatred felt by Near-Eastern subjects of Roman Empire (i.e. at that time mostly Syriac and Aramaic speaking population) against Classical Civilization.

          Ironically, those of Russians, who truly consider themselves white first and foremost and truly empathize with Europeans, become the most staunch “Russophobes” in the end.

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Posted March 27, 2014 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

            I think part of the anti-Western attitude of the Russians goes back all the way to the partitition of the latter day Roman Empire into a Catholic Western part and an Orthodox Eastern part with Rome and Constantinople as their capitals respectively. This anti-Western hostility exists among all Orthodox Eastern Europeans (for example Orthodox Serbians against Catholic Croats). I even found it among Greeks. Orthodox peoples consider themselves as in the possesssion of The Truth, while Westerners (Catholics and Protestants) are “heretics”. Russia is the “Third Rome”.

            • Greg Johnson
              Posted March 27, 2014 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

              I am not sure that the difference is merely a matter of Orthodoxy vs. Western Christianity, since Orthodox Ukrainians lean toward the West.

              • Émile Durand
                Posted March 28, 2014 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

                To this one can add Romanians and Bulgarians. Romanians are essentially anti-Russian and Bulgarians are ambivalent towards Russia to say the least. Even in WWI Bulgaria fought on the side of Central Powers, although Russian Empire was an Orthodox State. And of course, both Romanians and Bulgarians clearly lean towards Europe.

          • Razvan
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

            “This anti-Western hostility exists among all Orthodox Eastern Europeans (for example Orthodox Serbians against Catholic Croats).”

            This is not true. My grandfather was an Orthodox priest who read French and German books with great delight, Balzac and Goethe as his preferred authors. He, and I’m sure all his colleagues (they were frequently meeting and discussing), saw the Romanian Orthodoxy in a European context, part of Europe, and surely not opposed to it. As many conservatives and reactionaries he had great hopes from Ronald Reagan, not from Gorby.

            The split between Rome and Constantinople was a political move with deep economic and historical reasons (since the time of the Roman Empire).
            Before the Great Schism, it was practically a war between different ethnicities within the Byzantine Empire, with some Italian merchants and bankers thrown in the mix (from different antagonistic Italian cities, not exactly paragons to be precise, but extremely dangerous). As any empire, it was naturally descending in chaos while the Greeks were trying to maintain their rule against everybody else, while the Turks and the Arabs were ante-portas.

            In the so called Orthodox world, the anti-western hostility you observed, is a political hostility sponsored by state or foreign powers (mostly Russia). Sometimes the hostility is fueled by incompetent and intrusive “western” diplomats (many of them Jews and liberals following an anti-European agenda). Many are confounding the “West”, and especially the USA with the Jewish interests and subversion. Many are knowingly saying “Americans” because they are not allowed to say “Jews”.

            The Christianity was a battle field as any other, subject of infiltration and subversion, the Church being most of the time subordinated to the state, and a tool of the state. But one should not forget that the Church has economic interests as anybody else.

            Also the idea that the Moscow is the third Rome is the most anti-Orthodox ideological stupidity ever devised on Russian territory. No way that a KGB snitch as the Alexey of Moscow to become a figure similar to the Pope, nor that any national church would recognize the primate of Moscow. Not only it would be a flagrant break (not that it would be for the first time) of the principles of the Orthodox Church – the Autocephaly ( and synodicity ( But due to profound historical and economic reasons. Even it’s sounding great for the Muscovite imperialists, it still is a laughable idiocy.

  14. reiner arischer Tor
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 5:34 am | Permalink

    Prior to the mass deportations of 1944, Crimean Tatars and Greeks were the largest ethnic groups populating the peninsula.

    What is the source for this statement? The only source I found (I admit, I didn’t look that hard) was Wikipedia, according to which Russians were already almost the second largest ethnic group (almost as large as the then-largest Tatars) in 1897.

    This means Russians have many claims to that land: they conquered it from a non-White group (they are the ones who constituted the “non-White ancestry” of Russians, remember them? are pure-blooded Tatars better than 95 or 99% Whites with 5 or 1% Tatar ancestry?), they defended it from other Whites and non-Whites (Crimean War, Second World War) with their blood, and then they populated it. As opposed to the Ukrainians, who didn’t do the fighting, and neither did they populate it. So what claim do they have on the area? It was Khrushchev’s gift? The sanctity and inviolability of internal Soviet province borders drawn by Soviet dictators?

    Moreover, from a Ukrainian nationalist point of view, short of ethnically cleansing the area, I can see no point in retaining the Crimea. It will always vote for Yanukovich-style people, costs money (it pays less taxes than subsidies), so why bother? I think in the long term they will be thankful to Putin for ridding them so many of their Tatar and Russian “compatriots”.

    • Émile Durand
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      Firstly, never in the text did I claim that Tatars are better than Russians.

      For further analysis let’s take those official numbers at face value, although keeping in mind that they are likely to be skewed in favor of Russians given that both Russian Empire and later Soviet Union were interested in boosting their percentage. Nevertheless, let’s go with those figures.

      Among post-Soviet territories in Europe, Crimea is the only one where Russians may have some legitimate claims. Nevertheless, it has to be borne in mind that the ethnic cleansing of non-Russians did not just happen in 1944. It was a continuous process, beginning from the Bolshevik Revolution (if not earlier), which culminated in 1944. This can (at least partly) explain the drastic drop in the percentage of Tatars from 1897 (35.55%) to 1939 (19.4%). And as you can see, the ethnic cleansing of Tatars and other minorities (i.e. Germans, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians) did indeed significantly boost the percentage of Russians in 1944 (71.4%).

      The article itself was not only about Crimea, but rather of something more general and deeper – i.e., the general claims of Russians to post-Soviet territories with a significant Russian population. If in Crimea they constituted a large part already for a long time, in Eastern Ukraine they became the majority only after starving 7 to 8 million Ukrainians to death. The vast majority of Russians populating Baltic States was settled there after 1940, with accompanying mass murder and deportation of the indigenous population. It is therefore important to reflect upon the situation in Crimea within a larger context. It is Europeans who are being guided by objective argumentation and by the feeling of justice. Russians however do not approach the problem this way. The fact that they did not constitute the majority in Eastern Ukraine before Holodomor and never constituted the majority in other European post-Soviet territories will not stop them from treating those matters in the same way as they treated Crimea. They are convinced that their co-ethnics are rightful inhabitants in those territories and will not have less compunction in seizing them as well. That is my concern and that is why at the end I wondered whether European nationalists will also support Russian claims in Eastern Ukraine, Transnistria and Baltic States.

      “Moreover, from a Ukrainian nationalist point of view, short of ethnically cleansing the area, I can see no point in retaining the Crimea. It will always vote for Yanukovich-style people, costs money (it pays less taxes than subsidies), so why bother? I think in the long term they will be thankful to Putin for ridding them so many of their Tatar and Russian ‘compatriots’.”

      I agree with this statement. But as already mentioned above the real concern is that this easy victory in Crimea will make Russia more insolent and instill the feeling of impudence. This in turn will put other European nations in danger.

      • Armor
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

        “the real concern is that this easy victory in Crimea will make Russia more insolent and instill the feeling of impudence. This in turn will put other European nations in danger.”

        I hope Russia will not invade the Baltic states, but I wish Putin would help organize a military coup in France.

        • Razvan
          Posted March 29, 2014 at 2:35 am | Permalink

          No, he can’t wait to buy some more Mistral class ships from his friend Hollande. To liberate the Baltic states from their own burden, of course. They are so ungrateful, you know.

    • Razvan
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

      Reiner, something more wicked than the Soviet stats, are the tsarist stats. In 1897 the Russian government said there was no need of Romanian schools in Moldavia, because there are no Romanians left in Moldavia. Everyone speaking Russian, is a Russian after their stats.

      Of course they still atack the Romanian schools in Tiraspol using soldiers with guns, and they arrest teachers and terrorize school kids. As recently as February 5 2014.

      The imperialism is generally sick, but the Russian imperialism has its own category.

  15. Greg Johnson
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know why these discussions are so hard for people to grasp without resorting to name calling and tu quoque and invidious comparisons. Actually, Russia and the United States are very similar:

    1. Both are continental Empires sprung from European stocks.

    2. Both have objectively European ancestry and cultures, but subjectively think of themselves as in opposition to unfree or decadent or unholy Europe.

    3. In their imperial expansion, both have absorbed populations of different races (Mongoloids and Near Easterners/Caucasians, including Jews, in Russia; Indians, East Asians, Negroes, Jews, etc. in the US, plus every ethnic group of Europe). In neither case, however, does this justify the fallacious inference (the fallacy of division), namely, that because Russia or America is a racially-mixed society, every Russian or American is racially-mixed.

    4. Both have univeralistic, messianic ideologies that justify their expansion and meddling in the affairs of others.

    In Russia, however, the process of assimilating other peoples has gone on a lot longer than in America, and also, the Russians seem to have had better conscience about it for a longer time than in the US. For most of American history there were strong stigmas attached to race-mixing, and the products of race-mixing were not accepted in white society. It took nearly 300 years before a non-white became President of the US. In Russia, a non-white, Boris Godunov, ruled from 1585-1605 (

    The important conclusion to draw from this is not that Russians or Americans are all non-European (which is a fallacy), but the Russian and American mentality or self-conception is non-European, indeed in significant ways anti-European. Therefore, Russian and American nationalism is not something the European nationalists should look upon with favor. Conservatism, petty-state nationalism, and grand imperial nationalism are all enemies of white ethnonationalism.

    Putin’s regime is analogous to a United States ruled by Patrick Buchanan. Too many White Nationalists would be delighted with that outcome, but I see it as a mortal danger, because the worst possible outcome from the point of view of racial preservation is that the present multiracial, multicultural system be placed on firmer cultural and political footing. See my review of Buchanan’s last book:

    America shows every sign of being on the road to ruin, but it is not a failed state yet.

  16. Artie Bucco
    Posted March 29, 2014 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    I wonder if, while tragic, the 20th century persecution of nationalism in the West has acted as a cleansing fire which we will ultimately benefit from. By persecuting nation-state based nationalism, the powers that be forced our best minds in an identitarian direction. Had nationalists triumphed in the 1940s, I truly wonder if they would have constructed the kind of European empire we envision today, or if petty nationalist sentiments would have caused the whole thing to collapse or become just another situation in which one ethnic group lords it over their neighbors.

    In this sense, ethnic Russians are out of sync with many of their fellow Whites. I agree with Mr. Johnson’s argument regarding Putin and Buchanan. By not having anyone remotely like us in power, we have been forced to choose between the current regime and our beliefs. I fear all too many people like us in Russia do not feel they need to make that choice thanks to Putin, and will be manipulated into opposing the interests of their fellow Whites as a result.

  17. Whites Unite
    Posted March 29, 2014 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Putin profits from Stalin’s crimes?

    Stalin only did two things in his entire political life which were *not* crimes:

    1. Order the assasination of Trotsky.
    2. Deport the Crimean Tatars back to central Asia where they belong.

    The Crimean Tatars are most certainly not the aboriginal people of the Crimea, they are not part of the White meta-ethny (defined by European race, Indo-European or paleo-European language, a history of Christian religion, and the *relatively* [compared to Asia or North Africa] egalitarian traditional folkways of Europe [not to be confused with the utopian *absolute* equality advocated by the left]), and since the arrival of their Cuman/Polovsty ancestors in the 11th century AD they have done more harm to Whites than any other non-White group, with the exception of the Jews. Over the centuries, on their own initiative, they made thousands of raids against Ukrainians, Poles and Russians for plunder and slaves, selling the later into the middle east via Jewish middle men. As auxiliaries of the Golden Horde and the Ottoman Empire, they helped these oriental despotisms invade and conquer much of eastern Europe. Great heroes of the White race such as Vladimir Monomakh, Prince Daniel of Galicia, Dmitri Donskoi, John Hunyadi and John Sobieski, fought to defend our people against these hellish bandits. Sending them back to central Asia, and settling Russians, our White brothers, in the Crimea, was an act of long overdue justice.

    Emile Durand’s two articles have been among the most dissappointing to appear on Counter Currents. There are numerous blatant factual errors, but far worse are two of his flawed interpretations. These erroroneous interpretations are potentially *fatal* to the cause of White Nationalism:

    1. Russians are not our White brothers, but Jews and Tatars are.
    2. Insofar as the Hlodomor, and indeed the entire Red Terror in eastern Europe 1917-1957, had an ethnic aspect, it was a campaign waged by Great Russians against Ukrainians and the other peoples of eastern Europe. The Jews, in this analysis, did not play a significant role and have nothing to be ashamed of.

    The first of these errors isn’t even petty nationalism, it is absurd jingoism, on par with the English chauvanist saying “Wogs start at Calais”. Durand apparently wants us to think “Wogs start at Smolensk”. Such attitudes, rooted in the narcicism of small differences, are easily manipulated by the D’Israelis and Nulands of the world. Having met numerous Russians, and having travelled to Russia, I can assure Counter Currents readers that ethnic Russians (as oppossed to the non-Russian citizens of the Russian Federation) are, indeed, White.

    The second error is assiduously promlugated by Jews, particularly neocons. It is of supreme importance, given the PC pecking order based on victimhood credentials which defines power in the cultural marxist regime. The pecking order goes like this:

    Other non-Whites

    Jewish culpability in the Red Terror gives the lie to the Jewish claim that their people have always been victims, and have never victimized others. Thus, historical truth undermines the entire justification for the PC pecking order. The neocon lie that Great Russian chauvanism was at the root of the Red Terror, on the othe hand, reinforces the PC pecking order.

    I urge you, Mr. Durand, to carefully consider the following:

    Soviet history can be divided into two periods, the early bloodstained period 1917-1957 when the vast majority of the 21,000,000 victims of Communism, as estimated by the Black Book, were murdered, and the later more peaceful period 1957-1991 when very few were murdered. Russians and Ukrainians were overrepresented in positions of power in the later period, while Jews (and to a lesser extent other non-East Slavic minorities) were overrepresented in positions of power during the earlier, bloodstained period.

    Four of the seven members of the first Politboro were Jews, and of the other three one, Lenin, had a Jewish grandfather. As overrepresented as the Jews were in the Bolshevik party as a whole, they were even more overrepresented in the left faction which was led by Trotsky, a Jew. On the other hand the Russians were overrepresented, relative to their numbers in the Bolshevik party as a whole, in the right faction led by Bukharin, a Russian. Jews were also overrepresented in center faction led by Stalin, a Georgian, but not as much so as in Trotsky’s left faction.

    During the policy debates after the death of Lenin, Trotsky advocated a bloodthirsty policy of collectivization of the peasants at home, and exporting revolution abroad. Bukharin, in stark contrast, advocated a humane policy of continuing the NEP (allowing the peasants to keep their private farms) at home, and a humane foreign policy based on socialism in one country. Stalin, manuevering for power, adopted Trotsky’s collectivization policy and Bukharin’s foreign policy. After Trotsky’s exile, once collectivization began under Stalin’s leadership, many of Trotsky’s erstwhile Jewish supporters rallied to the support of Stalin, while several of Bukharin’s Russian supporters remained steadfastly oppossed to collectivization.

    Since collectivization is what caused the Hlodomor, it is extremely important to note that it was Trotsky and other Jewish Bolsheviks who strenuously advocated for collectivization, while it was Bukharin and his disproportionately Russian followers who argued against collectivization. Furthermore Stalin, a Georgian, sent Yagoda and Kaganovich, Jews, to carry out collectivization in the Ukraine.

    In the Red Terror as a whole, Ukrainians were not the only victims. Millions of Russians were also murdered. The groups hardest hit were all groups against which the Jews had grudges – Cossacks, Orthodox priests, the Russian upper class and Ukrainians (because of the 1918 pogroms, and the 1648 uprising, Jews had an especial grudge against Ukrainians).

    • Razvan
      Posted March 30, 2014 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

      And which would be the international policy currently followed by Kremlin?

      An white man with an Tatar/Asian identity is still an white man? Or how white a man with a Tatar identity really is? How can we understand Russia, the Russian Empire, the Russian people, and the Russian speaking populations from a racial point of view?

      This is the essence of the article, which sheds light on the Russian Empire history, against the ideological wishful thinking of too many of us. You simply skip to many important “details”.

      Unfortunately, it is not Mr. Durand proclaiming the brotherhood with the Tatars and the Jews. It is Mr. Putin himself with his euroasianism. Not Mr. Durand is bringing them into his cabinet but Mr. Putin himself. 149,043 Tatars in Moscow right now.

      And the deportation of Tatars to their homeland in Central Asia is only a dream. Tatars were deported everywhere, in southern Moldavia after 1812, now occupied by Ukraine. In fact USSR made a good use of them against the Romanian population (1924 – Tatar Bunar terror attack).

      Because Stalin did make revolution export. USSR constantly attacked its neighbors, especially Poland and Romania. There was an espionage and subversion center in Odessa directed against Romania which was responsible for many acts of terror on Romanian territory.

      They may declare one thing, while doing the opposite. USSR signed treaties of non-aggression with all their neighbors only to divert their attention and make a full scale attack few years later. (Which has happened to Ukraine today. The integrity of Ukraine was granted by Russia while Ukraine dismantled its nuclear arsenal. Now they are under attack.)

      The truth is that not only the Bolsheviks conquered, deported, exterminated people, while using different peoples as preferred colonists. This is a constant characteristic of the Russian empire (tsarist or communist).

      Even in its “peaceful” period. (Remember Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the War of Attrition, Eritrea, Somalia, Afghanistan, Moldavia, Ossetia, Georgia, Chechnya, North Caucasus). Not to mention the African and South American guerrillas sponsored and trained by the Russian Empire. Not to talk about the load of foreign leaders or military commanders assassinated by the Russian Empire (radiation poisoning as preferred method). A pretty active foreign policy, huh?

      OK, USSR trained ANC activists, awarded Mandela and so on. But who made Putin to give the most glowing tribute to the monster?
      Aren’t you tired to lie yourself?

      The Russian people need to decide what they want to be. An European people, or an Asian Empire. As simple as that.

      • Whites Unite
        Posted March 30, 2014 at 9:05 pm | Permalink


        The best Russians, which is to say the Russian Nationalists, have already decided. They consider themselves a White Christian European nation. Please see the articles written by Russian Nationalist leader Igor Artemov, translated by our friend Roman Frolov, and featured at The Occidental Observer.

        I think the Russian annexation of the Crimea benefits the cause of White Nationalism in at least two ways:

        1. The number of ethnic Russians and Tatars in the Ukraine is reduced, increasing Svoboda’s electoral prospects.

        2. A spirit of pride and nationalism has been awakened among the Russians, but RT propaganda can’t disguise the fact that Tatars and Jews are the most hysterical opponents of Russian national interests. I think this will cause the Russians to turn away from Putin’s obviously flawed Eurasianism, and give their support to true Russian ethno-nationalists.

        • Razvan
          Posted March 31, 2014 at 4:18 am | Permalink

          I did read Artemov’s articles the day they were posted on OO, and I find them simply exceptional. That’s why I recommended some time ago too. Frankly I like Artemov very much. As opposed to Dugin, which I find simply disgusting.

          But the annexation of Crimea, is a different matter. Russia, and US granted the integrity of Ukraine instead of the Ukrainian nuclear arsenal, which was the fourth in the world at that time. You can’t play with the borders of another European country without consequences. I accuse Putin of irresponsibility. He sponsored the corrupt (in fact a former common law inmate, also around Putin there are too many former common law inmates) Yanukovych government now he breaks the international treaties.

          Tomorrow, they can take the Baltic states and Moldavia, because there are Russian speaking people there, by the same technology. And that’s simple imperialism.

          I make the difference between the Russian nationalists and Russian imperialists, between Russians and Russians speaking people and the large number of the racially mixed people all over Russia.

          If a nationalist as Artemov understands the imperial menace against the white Russians, I think the Dugin’s and Putin’s outlook prevails. A raceless Asian Empire. Putin doesn’t hate the supposed western degeneracy (which was heavily sponsored by the KGB, by the way), he hates the western splendor. Because it is everything what the Russian Empire never can be. With all it’s riches it is still poor, violent, backward, feared because of its nefarious influence. They can’t let the Asian Empire go.

          Please take a look at the Russian commentators had to say at Mr. Durand, articles. Do you think that they are going to let the Empire die for a white Russian only homeland? Look how happy they are because they got a piece of land with tons of problems. (Now to be clear those Tatars are not going back to Mongolia. They are heading to Moscow, to be clear. Straight in the president’s bad, even.)

          You never met this kind of people. They are trying to save you, even you don’t need to be saved, after that they feel that you are not grateful enough and start hating your guts. They see themselves as heroes, you see them as dangerous drunkards in full state of grandiose delusions.

          Please take a look.

          Are they going to let go the Empire? Are they even in their right mind? Has Artemov and the imprisoned Russian nationalists any chance against these?

          Artemov deserves our respect for his courage and fight, but the article was not about him. It is about the merry bunch from the picture.

    • Émile Durand
      Posted March 30, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

      By the way, here is an article dispelling the widespread belief among WNs for Russians’ inculpability for communist crimes:
      Of course, Jews were the main ideologues of Bolshevism and the instigators of those crimes, however one has to be aware that their populism and instigations fell on fertile ground, which was the Russians with their worldview, inclinations and behavior. The same goes for the atrocities committed by the Red Army in WWII.

      In addition to all what Razvan has already said, after 1950s Jews were purged from all important positions in Soviet Union and were prevented from occupying any of them in the future. From that time on Soviet Union was an essentially anti-Semitic country. However, this in no way prevented USSR from financing and training Marxist revolutionaries in the West. All those Jewish Marxist “intellectuals” in Europe and the U.S. were being financed by USSR, while at that time the country was certainly not run by Jews anymore, but rather mostly (if not entirely) by Russians themselves.

  18. Razvan
    Posted March 30, 2014 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    I never thought that things are so degraded, but they really are. Worse than Mr. Durand says.

    Putin lover/wife whatever is a “Russian” gymnast, Alina Kabaeva, right?
    Well, then take a look,
    and discover that her father is a Tatar, and her real name is Älinä Marat qızı Qabayeva.
    The great white hope, huh?

    • Razvan
      Posted March 30, 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      And her trainer was a Jew, Irina Viener, the wife of of a Tatar magnate Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov…
      What can be said more than that.

  19. Alex
    Posted March 16, 2015 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    My mom from Ukraine. My dad from Belarus. I was born in USSR. In Moscow. When my mom was a young my grandmother and grandfather go for permanent residence Crimea. when I was 7 years old they they returned from the Crimea back to Chernihiv region in Ukraine. My cousin was born in Crimea. And he always told me that Crimea has a rich history independent from any country in the world. I know a lot of people from Russia who were born in the Ukraine and in the last 20-30 years have come to Russia for permanent residence. It’s a fact. It’s a people who have a similar history, similar fate. It’s different peoples united under the banner of the country that used to be known as the Soviet Union. read the story. look at the left bank and right bank. Who are the Russian Ukrainians and Ukrainian Russian. Think about who the Hungarians, Hutsul, Poles and Ukrainian, who the Cossacks and Russian. Do you really believe the media? I beg you on behalf of the nation: Do not touch russians. Do not get involved in politics, be people. We also just want to live in peace.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace