Print this post Print this post

White Nationalist Delusions About Russia

Map of Eurasia from 1771. Much of present-day Russia is called Grand Tartary.

Map of Eurasia from 1771. Much of present-day Russia is called Great Tartary.

4,120 words

Translations: German, RussianSpanish

The crisis in Ukraine is unfolding at full speed, and White Nationalist circles in the West are closely following the events. A lot has already been said about the deep cultural and historical divide separating the western, Europe-oriented part of Ukraine from the eastern part, which has strong ties with Russia. With Russia’s military moves in the Crimea, some are even prophesying the onset of the Third World War.

The majority of White Nationalists in the West nowadays cherish strong hopes in Russia and Putin in particular, which have reached a crescendo with the ongoing Ukraine crisis. However, I want to argue that these hopes are grave delusions. Not because Putin is also controlled by Jews, as is being countered by some White Nationalists; he may or may not be, but that makes no difference for us. And alternatively, even if Putin’s Russia is not controlled by the Jews as strongly as the West (which is indeed not true – see below), even if Russia receives the full wrath of the Jewish-controlled media, it still doesn’t make Putin’s Russia our friend or a natural ally.

Nevertheless, I concede that at the moment Russia is the lesser evil for the white race compared to the Jew-led West. But still it has to be understood that Russia is also an evil, an essentially anti-white system. Hence, at most, it could be only a temporary ally.

White Nationalists seek power to enable our race to fulfill its destiny. To gain power, however, our movement has to have a firm grasp on reality. We also need a thorough knowledge of its enemies and (potential) allies. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for White Nationalists to have a clear understanding of who the Russians are. This understanding will be especially crucial if White Nationalists seek an alliance with Russia in the future against a common enemy.

Somehow when reflecting upon Russians, White Nationalists, who in all other instances are manifestly sober and realistic with regard to race and ethnicity, suddenly lose their common sense. When one speaks of German or French identity, it is understood that the Germans and the French are white, European peoples, regardless of recent non-white immigration. Thus German and French nationalism are not necessarily opposed to wider white racial interests, although they often have been. Let’s call German, French, and similar identities ethnic, because they denote a core ethnic group.

Brazilian identity, however, does not have such unambiguous racial connotations. Brazil has many Europeans, but it also has blacks, Amerindians, and many individuals of two or more races. Thus Brazilian nationalism is, by its nature, inconsistent with white racial interests. American identity used to connote whiteness, even though America had non-white minorities. But the American identity has been transformed into a commitment to the idea of freedom and equality for all. Thus American nationalism is, by its nature, opposed to white racial interests. Let’s call American, Brazilian, and analogous identities trans-racial, since they both transcend and transform races.

Russian identity is more analogous to American and Brazilian trans-racial identity than German or French ethnic identity. There are many Russians who are entirely European. But there are also many Russians of Near Eastern and Mongoloid ancestry, and many of mixed race. But even the whitest of Russians, to the extent that he thinks of himself as a Russian, is committed to a trans-racial identity, an identity whose racial “substratum” includes not just European, but also Mongoloid and Near Eastern (e.g., Caucasian) elements, as well as mixtures of all three.

A Russian is not, therefore, just another kind of European. Thus it is with good reason that Russians have always felt that their identity, interests, and destiny are distinct from those of Europe. European White Nationalists need to recognize this as well.

White Nationalists are also well aware that a country’s developmental index, its per-capita GDP, the average income of its citizens, the level of corruption, etc. are directly correlated with average levels of many heritable traits within its population. In terms of corruption and many other parameters Russia is far closer to a country like Brazil than to any European country. In some areas, Russia is not even within Asian or Latin American ranges but rather competes with sub-Saharan Africa.

Moreover, blaming the backwardness of Russia on Communism would be like blaming slavery for the backwardness of Africa. Firstly, Russia has always been backward in comparison to the West, and secondly most of the former Eastern bloc and USSR countries in Europe managed to create functional and prosperous societies shortly after freeing themselves from the Russian yoke. Belarus and Ukraine have been exceptions, mainly due to the fact that even after gaining independence they could never properly throw off Russian influence.

If the identity, interests, and destiny of Russia are not European, the fact that Putin has passed some traditionalist laws and that Russian society is allegedly moving in a more traditionalist direction does not help European White Nationalists in any way.

If we are to rejoice at Russian traditionalism and see them as allies simply because of that, then why don’t we see Muslims as allies and see hope for the West in their traditionalism as well? After all, they are even more hardcore than Russians.

Traditionalism serves the well-being and promotes the survival of every different ethnic group, but just because different ethnic groups choose similar methods and values to promote their own survival does not automatically make them allies.

Therefore the stronger traditionalism of Russians, their patriotism and pride in their heritage, do not advance White Nationalist interests any more than the racial pride and patriotism of Indians, Chinese, Middle Easterners, Latin Americans, or Africans. Indeed, it might make them more formidable enemies of our interests.

The Grand Duchy of Moscow as the Forerunner of the Russian state

Racially and culturally, the forerunner of Russia was the Grand Duchy of Moscow (1263–1547) which later became the Tsardom of Russia under Ivan IV (The Terrible), and not Kievan Rus as has been claimed by Russian historians since the time of Catherine the Great (who, by the way, was not Russian).

Already by the end of the 15th century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow was populated mostly by Christianized Tatar-Mongols who in the course of the previous two centuries had gradually adopted Orthodox Christianity and taken Slavic names. The indigenous Slavic population had become a minority in a relatively short period of time due to the large influx of these Christianized Asiatic nomads, and due to mixed marriages between Christianized Mongols and indigenous Slavs.

The expansion of the Grand Duchy of Moscow further to the east, into the lands of Ugric peoples (e.g., Mordvins, Udmurts), increased the Asiatic component of the population even further. Later, under Ivan the Terrible, the Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates were conquered and incorporated into the Tsardom of Russia. The vast majority of the Volga Bulgars populating those states (whose descendants from the 19th century on were falsely called “Tatars,” not to be confused with the nomadic Tatars mentioned above), was forced to adopt Christianity and Slavic names. And finally, beginning with the conquest of Siberia in the 17th century, there was a gradual Christianization and Russification of the mostly Turkic peoples populating those lands.

The only Eastern Slavic state not affected by the Mongol invasions and hence able to retain its white Slavic/Nordic composition was the Novgorod Republic. Its customs, its culture, and the mentality of its inhabitants differed from those of Muscovy. As race realists should realize, these differences relate to differences in racial composition of those two states. The most glaring difference is in the system of government: although Asiatic despotism reigned in Muscovy, Novgorod was governed by a popular assembly, the “Veche,” which was similar to the Norse “thing” or Swiss cantonal assembly.

However, as a result of two wars in 1471 and 1477–78 Novgorod was conquered and destroyed by Muscovy. The city was devastated, and most of its inhabitants were massacred in the cruelest (i.e., Asiatic) manner. The Great Novgorod that was spared from the invasion by nomadic Mongols suffered destruction at the hands of Slavs and Christianized Tatar-Mongols. With the complete victory of Muscovy over Novgorod, the destiny of the future Russian state was determined.

The people of Muscovy identified themselves solely as Orthodox (Pravoslavnye), and the term “Russian” was indeed completely unknown to them. Beginning with Ivan III, the grand dukes and later the tsars saw themselves as the heirs of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire (hence the term “Third Rome” coined by them), and the champions of Orthodox Christianity. They were never guided by any kind of ethnic or racial identity or an idea of an ethnic state. The Orthodox Church, like all Christian churches, accepted converts of all races and blessed interracial marriages and their offspring.

From the start, then, the Russian identity was not of a white European people, but of a white, Asiatic, and mixed-race population professing Orthodox Christianity and ruled from Moscow.

Interestingly, however, at that time there were people who had long called themselves “Ruskie” (with one “s”) and most importantly were identified as such in Western Europe. They were the descendants of the people of Kievan Rus. At that time, they were the subjects of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where they formed by far the largest demographic and linguistic group. Their ethnic and linguistic descendants are present-day Ukrainians and Belarusians. Later historians began calling them Ruthenians. Modern Ukrainian and Belarusian developed from the Ruthenian language. Therefore, it is the Ukrainians and Belarusians who are the rightful heirs (both racially and culturally) of Kievan Rus.

There were dramatic differences between Ruthenia and Muscovy. Slavish servility towards rulers, a typical Oriental trait, was characteristic of the Muscovites, whereas in Ruthenia the Magdeburg Law, completely unknown in Muscovy, operated in the towns, and the Ruthenians were as conscious of their rights and free in spirit as their western European counterparts. Therefore, from the very beginning, the inhabitants of Ruthenia were aware that Muscovite-Russians were a very different people. Even today the word “Muscovite” (Moskal) is used in Ukrainian as a derogatory term for Russians.

Thus the opposition of Ukraine towards Russia has deep historical roots. The recent conflict in Ukraine, as well as the Orange Revolution in 2004, have to be seen primarily not in terms of geopolitics, as many White Nationalists are inclined to do, but rather as a deeper confrontation — as the struggle of European Slavs against an alien, non-European power.

The Europeanization and De-Europeanization of Russia

There was, however, a considerable infusion of European blood and European culture into Russia beginning in the 18th century when Peter I (the Great) proclaimed the Russian Empire and oriented the Russian state toward the West. Many European (mostly German, but also French, Italian, and Swedish) engineers, craftsmen, artists, and state and army officials were invited to Russia to develop the infrastructure, to modernize the army and state apparatus, to educate the local population, and to introduce western art.

This process accelerated when large numbers of German settlers were invited by Catherine II (the Great), herself also German, to cultivate large swathes of Russian territory. The German newcomers settled especially around the Volga River basin, and their descendants later became known as Volga Germans. It was mostly thanks to the efforts and contributions of Russian Germans that Russia became Europeanized and assumed her position among the main European powers.

Indeed, it is only beginning in the 18th century that the terms “Russia” (Rossiya) and “Russian” (Russkiy) came into widespread use, and historians of the Russian Empire actively promote the idea of Russia being the rightful heir of Kievan Rus in order to ideologically justify the past and future conquests under the motto “gathering the ancient lands of Rus.”

This “Europeanization,” however, occurred only on the surface, and in its essence Russia remained a distinctly non-European society, in which a European minority elite ruled over a Slavic, Asiatic, Near Eastern, and mixed-race population. However, this process of “Europeanization” was drastically reversed, both culturally and more importantly racially, with the Bolshevik Revolution.

It is a common misconception to regard the imposition of communism in Russia as a merely a political change. First and foremost, the Bolshevik Revolution was a revolt of the culturally and/or racially non-European masses against the European elite. In short, this critical event in history has to be primarily comprehended not in social-political but rather in racial terms. The ideals of communism served only as a façade, as a tool through which the spiteful non-European masses expressed their deep and long-held hatred and resentment towards their European masters and everything European. This was already at that time clearly observed and eloquently pointed out by Oswald Spengler.

Most importantly, communism drastically and irreversibly changed the racial makeup of the Russian population. The Communist regime targeted mostly the intellectual and political elites for destruction, who were primarily descendants the indigenous Slavic population and later European immigrants. Millions were murdered, and the luckier ones escaped to Europe, never to return. And since the de-Europeanization of Russia was first and foremost racial, it would be highly misleading to conclude that Russia returned to the European world after the fall of communism.

Putin’s “New” Russia

Indeed, the majority of the current Russian population reveres the Soviet past. The official ideology of Putin’s Russia rests upon its glorification. And, as expected, Putin’s Russia takes inspiration from the Soviet past rather than from the Russian Empire, which can be regarded as the only (quasi) European period in Russian history. Putin once even called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century.” Not the creation of the Soviet Union, mind you, but rather its collapse is the great catastrophe for Putin and his supporters, who are the vast majority of Russians.

Most importantly, every year Russians joyfully celebrate their “victory” in the Second World War (which they call “Great Patriotic War”), without regard to the fact that this “victory” was the gravest event in the history of the white race. These celebrations are accompanied by military parades on the Red Square in Moscow. This cult of victory is the main pillar upon which the national identity of Putin’s “new” Russia rests. They venerate their “veterans of the Great Patriotic War” who were the rapists of millions of white women, murderers of millions of white men and children. Basically this veneration of the barbarian hordes, and the pride that they feel in the barbarian invasion of Europe, underlines their ethnic identity. This alone is enough to conclusively demonstrate that the identity and nationalism of Russians are in conflict with white ethnic identity.

Even the slightest attempt to shed light on the crimes of the Red Army and to revise the official WWII narrative is met with the same kind of hysteria that characterizes Western liberals. At every opportunity, the Russian media demonize Estonia, Latvia, or Ukraine when they commemorate their heroes who fought alongside Germany against the Red Army defending their homelands, or when they remove the monuments to Red Army soldiers installed in their cities by the Soviet government. For example, in 2007, when Estonian authorities removed the Red Army monument in the center of Tallinn, the official Russian media went into hysterics, and “youths” from pro-Putin organizations surrounded the Estonian embassy in Moscow and threatened the ambassador.

There are a lot of Russians living in Estonia and Latvia (around 30% of the population). Their ancestors were settled there by Stalin in a deliberate attempt to change the demographics of those two small Baltic states. The social profile, behavior, and attitudes of these Russians closely resemble those of non-white Third World immigrants in western countries.

One simple and glaring example illustrates this point. The removal of the Red Army monument in the center of Tallinn coincided with the presidential elections in France which resulted in the victory of Nicolas Sarkozy. As is well known, after the elections the black/Arab population rioted. Around the same time, the Russians rioted in Tallinn, and they did everything they could to earn the name “Arabs of Estonia” — e.g., in Tallinn, as in Paris, burning cars and vandalism were widespread. But that did not stop Russian news sources from branding the Estonian government and police evil “fascists.”

In addition, many western White Nationalists may be surprised to hear that the Russian inhabitants of Crimea have recently shown their solidarity with Russia by waving the banners of the USSR and the Ukrainian Communist Party. They also have vilified and demonized the leaders of the Ukrainian resistance fighters who fought alongside the Germans against invading Soviet hordes – i.e., Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich.

Putin’s Russia is Nearly as Anti-White as the Liberal West

It is also a widespread delusion among western White Nationalists that Russia is free of Jewish influence and is an antidote to the Jew-led New World Order. Firstly, at every opportunity, Putin pays homage to the official “holocaust” narrative promulgated by the Jews. On many occasions he said that the holocaust was the most abominable atrocity in history, and the Red Army put an end to this horror. Since the cult of victory in WWII and the glorification of the Soviet past are the main pillars of national identity in modern Russia, this implies that Russian identity and patriotism are not only not opposed to Jewish interests but, on the contrary, are directly in line with them.

Secondly, anti-Semitism is very weak in Putin’s Russia, and Jews feel quite comfortable and welcome. Jewish life is flourishing at a level comparable only to the early aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution. A popular Russian-Jewish crooner, Iosif Kobzon, said not so long ago that “Jews are currently experiencing a Renaissance in Russia.” Furthermore, before the presidential elections in 2012, the chairman of the Council of Russian Jews proclaimed his full support to Putin and expressed his confidence that all Jews in Russia will vote for him. He even said that he doesn’t know a single Jew in Russia who would be against Putin.

Moreover, again contrary to the hopes of many White Nationalists, neither Putin’s opposition to U.S. military intervention in Syria nor his passing legislation against some of the currents actively promoted by Jews in the West (e.g., homosexuality) is enough to qualify him as our ally or as anti-Jewish. For one thing, the attitude of international Jewry towards the Syrian crisis is not monolithic. While neocons promote military intervention, the Left, which is also led by Jews, strongly opposes it. Therefore, one cannot say that the failure of the campaign against the Assad regime is the failure of a specifically Jewish issue.

Regarding Putin’s anti-gay legislation, Uganda has also recently passed a law against homosexuality. Blacks and Muslims have been staunchly homophobic from time immemorial. But is it enough to make Uganda or Muslims and blacks in general our allies?

Finally, and most importantly, real Russian White Nationalists, who are as much a minority in Putin’s Russia as their counterparts are in the West, are vilified as “Nazis” and are persecuted far more harshly than in the liberal west.

The Ukrainian Revolution from White Nationalist Point of View 

Many western White Nationalists lament that Ukrainian nationalist organizations receive support from and maybe try to court favor from Jews. Others reproach Ukrainians for their petty nationalistic separatism, which is allegedly incompatible with the common fight against the perilous situation of whites worldwide. However, Ukraine is currently in a historical stage which western nations passed through long ago — i.e., the acquisition of a national identity. This step is a precondition for Ukrainians to acquire a broader sense white identity in the future.

Therefore, any consistent and honest White Nationalist should support the current Ukrainian revolution. If Ukraine has any chance to join the larger white European family, this is the time. White Ukrainians are breaking free from the Russian (non-European) yoke and joining their white brethren in the West.

It is simply a given that Jews will interfere with and try to profit from every upheaval, and they hedge their bets by playing both sides. Putin also has Jewish friends and advisers. So Jewish involvement in Ukrainian affairs is not in itself evidence that Jews are running the show, any more than Jewish involvement in Russian affairs is evidence that they control Putin.

Moreover, western White Nationalists should not underestimate Ukrainians (and by extension other Eastern Europeans), and they should not overestimate the brainwashing power of the Jew-led EU. Having closer ties with the West and even joining the EU does not automatically mean Ukraine will be flooded by hordes of non-white immigrants or gays will be marching on the streets of every big city.

Many Eastern European countries, including the post-Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, joined the EU in 2004. However, those countries remain predominantly white. So far, they have been completely spared the demographic changes experienced by western countries through non-white mass immigration. Eastern Europeans are sufficiently traditionalist not to permit their countries to be flooded by non-whites.

In addition, non-white immigrants find relatively poor Eastern European countries unattractive destinations. They look for easy money, welfare, preferential treatment, an opportunity to behave insolently with impunity, etc. If they feel that the local white population will not provide these opportunities to them, they will simply avoid those places.

Non-white immigrants also avoid relatively ethnocentric societies. Eastern Europe (especially Poland and Ukraine) already has a widespread image as “racist” terrain, to be avoided. The same incentives can be observed within Germany. The former East German territories have the reputation of being populated with “racists” and dangerous for immigrants. As a result, Turks, blacks, Arabs, etc. are simply afraid to go there. Thus even large cities like Leipzig and Dresden continue to have almost exclusively white populations.

Concluding Remarks  

I wish to repeat and emphasize that I recognize that there are many white people in Russia, just as there are many whites in Latin America and the US. And I recognize all whites as potential allies of White Nationalism. However, Russian White Nationalists have to understand that white identity is in conflict with Russian patriotism and Russian ethnic identity, just as white Mexicans recognize that White Nationalism is incompatible with Mexican identity and patriotism, and white Americans recognize that White Nationalism is incompatible with the universalistic, multiracial concept of American identity that Jews promote.

But those who think of themselves as Russians first and whites second have an identity, interests, and destiny opposed to Europe and White Nationalism. The same is true of a white American who thinks of himself as an American first, thereby adopting an identity, interests, and destiny opposed to White Nationalism. Being a French or a German patriot does not necessarily conflict with larger white interests, since France and Germany are integrally white countries. But being an American or Brazilian or Russian patriot does. Vladimir Putin is a Russian patriot. For a White Nationalist, that should not be a compliment.

To be consistent, White Nationalists should support Svoboda and Right Sector and not Putin’s Russia. A movement that aims at power has to possess a clear and sober understanding of its friends, potential allies, and enemies. First and foremost, it has to consolidate all of its adherents before considering an alliance with an alien power against a common enemy. It might well be expedient to ally ourselves with Russia on some occasions. But that alliance should not entail the betrayal of our racial and ideological brethren in Eastern Europe.

To conclude, western White Nationalists need to awaken from their Russophile dreams and face reality. Rather than fawning over Russia and Putin, they should be more concerned with maintaining their credibility with their Eastern European brothers and sisters. There are many devoted Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian, and other Eastern European nationalists reading western White Nationalist sites. When they encounter naïve, childish, and frankly hysterical Russophilia, they are rightly appalled.

Russian identity is as trans-racial as American identity, Christianity, Islam, liberalism, and Marxism. Russian imperialism, like American imperialism, Christianity, Islam, etc., is a mighty engine of miscegenation, an engine that has been chugging away since the Middle Ages. Like the first Rome and the second Rome, the Third Rome is not a nation but a machine that liquidates every nation it captures, including its own founders.

Thus Russian imperialism is not an alternative to globalization, but just another form of it. Thus Russia is not the future of the white race, but one of its graveyards. White Nationalists should, therefore, sympathize first and foremost with those white Russians and all captive peoples who wish to free themselves of that machine and its master, Vladimir Putin.



  1. Marcus
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    “Slavic servility to rulers.” Erm how many revolutions did Russia have in the 20th century? Also I seriously doubt Tatars were the largest component in the Duchy of Muscovy, they never settled in large numbers and were mainly concerned with exacting tribute. Most “Tatars” are phenotypically European. Some good points but overall a misleading article.

    • Stronza
      Posted March 7, 2014 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      Marcus, you said, “Slavic servility to rulers.”

      The article’s author actually said, ” Slavish servility towards rulers, a typical Oriental trait…”

      • reiner arischer Tor
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, but Russia just had two-hundred thousand protestors for several weeks in Moscow just a bit over a year ago. Only because the Russian police was competent and the Ukrainian not (Ukraine is much poorer, hence less money to train the police, and to give them candy to ensure their loyalty), this doesn’t mean Russians are any less revolutionary than Ukrainians. Singling out Russians with slavish servility vs. the Ukrainians doesn’t look very fair or even accurate.

        • Emile Durand
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:32 am | Permalink

          The Russian opposition that protested after the Duma elections in December 2011 was indeed characterized by servility towards the government. The main opposition leaders were repeatedly stating that they seek for a peaceful compromise with the existing government and that they actually DON’T want a revolution and a regime change. As a result the status quo fully remained increasing Putin’s grip over Russia even further.

          Moreover, even those timid “protestors” were only a tiny minority of the Russian population.

          • reiner arischer Tor
            Posted March 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

            First, the Maidan protesters were also just a small minority of the Ukrainian population. Second, the Russian regime is way more effective than that of Yanukovich. It also delivered way more to the Russian people: just look at living standards in Russia before Putin and in 2012. Russians clearly had a reason not to oppose Putin. Do you think if Yanukovich wasn’t presiding over one of the most serious economic crises of the independent Ukrainian state (not a small thing, since Ukraine’s last twenty-five years comprise of an almost unending series of economic crises), he would have met so strong a resistance? Third, the Putin regime is more competent on the job of oppressing their own people. Had the leaders of the protesters said that they wanted to change the political system, they could have landed themselves in prison for inciting revolt against the lawful government, or something like that.

    • nothingfail
      Posted March 11, 2014 at 7:05 am | Permalink

      Then check real genetic studies to see Russians are Ugro Finns closest related to Finns and Tatars, while Belorussians and Ukrainians (the old Rusins) are realted to the so called Western Slavs and Balts, with Ukrainians having a strong so called Sarmatian or Balkan/ Thracian element. Genetics will soon put every one in place!!!

  2. NYTrad
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    This author doesn’t appear to know much about the genetics of the Russian population, which show the Asian influence to be minimal.

    Moreover, there are European traditions of autocracy as well, see the French monarchy. To characterize Muscovy as an oriental despotism is incorrect. Furthermore, he criticizes the lack of national identity in the Middle Ages, hundreds of years before the Enlightenment gave us any concept of “nationalism.” One should note that Enlightenment nationalism served to subvert the traditional order of Europe.

    Certainly Putin is no white nationalist, but neither was any white imperial ruler in history, yet we have no qualms glorifying the Roman Empire. The turn towards Autocracy and Orthodoxy is a welcome trend that counters the global tyranny of liberalism.

    • Emile Durand
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:22 am | Permalink

      “Moreover, there are European traditions of autocracy as well, see the French monarchy.”

      Absolutism in Europe was nothing similar to Asiatic despotism. Absolute monarchy characterized the existence of a proud aristocracy conscious of its mission and importance, and also an emergent citizenry free in spirit and gradually becoming aware of its rights and freedoms. In short, the essence of absolutism remained to be hierarchical harmony which has characterized white European social order all the way through and is peculiar to the West. I am frankly surprised to witness that absolute monarchy is being conflated with Oriental despotism on a White Nationalist site.

      “Furthermore, he criticizes the lack of national identity in the Middle Ages, hundreds of years before the Enlightenment gave us any concept of ‘nationalism.’ “

      Lack of ethnic identity was not characteristic only of Muscovy but of the Russian state throughout its history. Even in the Russian Empire, the main pillar of identity remained to be Orthodoxy and hence the artificially created “Russian” identity remained to be trans-racial in its essence.
      In addition, it would be misleading to assume a lack of ethnic identity in Middle Ages in western Europe. Although, western European peoples were seemingly guided by a trans-racial ideology (i.e. Christianity), in practice European peoples have always been guided by racial and ethnic feelings and were always aware of their ethnic identities, at first implicitly under the guise of Christianity and later explicitly. Therefore western Christianity, in contrast to Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Christianities, was transformed in line with the racial feelings and impulses of western Europeans. Among other reasons, that is why the latter two Christianities are essentially Oriental religions, closer to Islam for example, whereas western Catholicism is an essentially white European religion. In this regard I would highly recommend the book “The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation” by James C. Russell.

      “One should note that Enlightenment nationalism served to subvert the traditional order of Europe.”

      Yes, that’s why in the text I emphasized that French or German identities are not NECESSARILY opposed to wider white racial interests IN ESSENCE, although it has often unfortunately been the case.

      • NYTrad
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

        The Russians had a proud aristocracy, the boyars, who were backed by militant retainers, the strelsy. Their power was only broken by the Pro-European Peter the Great.

        If Western Christianity was implicitly identitarian, why did the west embrace universalism much more so than the East. Need I note Catholic means “universal.” Imperial, Germanic forms of Catholicism like Ghibellinism were deemed heretical, whereas the East explicitly linked traditional monarchy and Orthodoxy, truly inheriting the Roman Tradition. If you believe that Byzantine Christianity is somehow “Asiatic” you are mistaken.

        Certainly there are features of Russia that make it separate from Western, Faustian civilization, but this does not mean they are somehow Mongols. If anything Russia has been historically conservative while the “true strong Nordic master race” embraced liberalism, democracy, mass industrialism, feminism, and the whole gamut of degeneration. Give me 1% Mongols who defend their heritage over pure Nordics who don’t care.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 10, 2014 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

          Christianity, eastern or western, is universalist and subversive of racial integrity.

          But, as you illustrate, any creed, if it is your ultimate value, is subversive or racial integrity. Decadent westerners are my people, whereas traditionalist Asians or Muslims are not my people. Do you really think that tradition is more important than racial integrity and loyalty?

          • NYTrad
            Posted March 11, 2014 at 11:25 am | Permalink

            I am for the preservation of ethnic Europeans and European culture, not a quaint 19th century Nordicism that denigrates Eastern and Southern Europeans for being less white because they weren’t as “progressive” than the oh-so-Enlightened English.

    • Emile Durand
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:40 am | Permalink

      “…yet we have no qualms glorifying the Roman Empire.”

      By the way, the evolution of Roman identity has some parallels with that of American identity. Altough at their inception they unambiguously designated whiteness and a white ethnicity, later both of them were tansformed to into trans-racial identities. In this regard I actually do have qualms glorifying Roman Empire. I admire the Kingdom of Rome and the republican period, but not the imperial period which lead to miscegenation and eventual fall.

      • Claude
        Posted March 11, 2014 at 12:23 am | Permalink

        You refer to Americans as having trans-racial identities. What?! Many white Americans are in fact trans-ethnic but 99% of us are all from Northwestern European stock. We are NOT trans-racial. The largest white ethnic group in America are German Americans. My mother is of German descent and my father is of English descent. So, you could say I am bi-ethnic but in no way biracial. Germans and the English are on the order of .999% identical genetically. I am 100% white — no nonwhite admixture at all.

        Maybe I am missing your point?

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 11, 2014 at 2:44 am | Permalink

          Yes, you are missing the point. The American identity transcends race, that is to day, includes many races, which is not to say that all Americans are of mixed race. Of course most Americans did not think this way until recently, but it is a straightforward implication of the idea of equality and freedom for all, the Lockean language of the Declaration of Independence that has been turned into a “creedal” notion of American identity.

          • Armor
            Posted March 11, 2014 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

            “it is a straightforward implication of the idea of equality and freedom for all”

            It isn’t really equality, it is one way interchangeability. And there is no freedom. The race replacement is mandatory for all Whites!

      • Peltast
        Posted March 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

        I’m reading this book: The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State

        It was published in 1993 and was written by the “American” jewish college professor called Benjamin Ginsberg :
        Jewish power isn’t a recent phenomenon that started with the Rothschilds and Karl Marx in the 19th century, its much older than that.

        The tax farmers of medieval Europe are almost all kikes, in Spain they worked in the bureaucracies of the both Christian and Muzz sides, they’re the ultimate insiders posing as outsiders.

        The jewish merchants controlled the trade between Christian Europe and the Muslim Middle-East:

        We can go even further than that, there was a Ancient Jewish lobby in 1st century BC Rome, they supported Julius Caesar and exported gold from the Roman provinces to Jerusalem. In the words of Cicero:

        The hatefulness of the Jewish gold now follows. Surely this is the reason that this case is being tired not far from the Aurelian steps. For the sake of the crime, this place and this crowd, Laelius, was sought by you. You know how large this band is and how close and how powerful they are in assemblies. So, I will proceed with a quiet voice, so that (only) judges may hear. Indeed, there is no lack of those who would incite them against me and anyone respectable. I will not help those men to do this more easily.

        When it was accustomed that gold was sent to Jerusalem each year from Italy and from all the other provinces by the authority of the Jews, Flaccus forbid by edict for this gold to be exported from Asia. Who, judges, is there who would not truly praise this deed? In fact, the senate during my consulship vehemently and frequently in the past determined that gold ought not to be exported.

        Pro Flacco 66-67 (Latin text from

        The Colosseum was built with the gold looted from the Jerusalem Temple after the Jewish Revolt of 70 AD:

        Construction of the Colosseum began under the rule of the Emperor Vespasian[5] in around 70–72 AD, funded by the spoils taken from the Jewish Temple after the Siege of Jerusalem.
        We’re facing a enemy that kept a consistent Modus Operandi over more than 2.000 years.

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      However, let’s not forget about the doctrine of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality” in the Russian Empire after the Napoleonic Wars, which basically merged monarchism with ethnic nationalism (not that an empire needs nationalistic ideas to practice ethnic separatism).

  3. Mike
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    a timely, trenchant article; a good history lesson as well that clears up much misunderstanding. i will read it again. let me say this, however, in defense of we who have, rightly or wrongly, hoped for a champion in putin’s russia. so pernicious, so insidious is the current state of affairs in america, and so accelerated is the anti-white agenda here, that many of us look fondly, favorably on any person or nation that might defeat or humiliate this ugly monstrosity that threatens to destroy us with virtually every act it commits. thus, for some of us, it is not so much a hope of racial solidarity with russia and tutelage as it is a hoped for a trigger event that might start the final collapse of this ugly abomination called the u.s. like it or not, russia is the last best hope of the white race on earth. perhaps in another year, space aliens will ride to our rescue, or end it all for everyone, but for now, russia and putin is the horse we are pulling for.

  4. Posted March 7, 2014 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    “Regarding Putin’s anti-gay legislation, Uganda has also recently passed a law against homosexuality. Blacks and Muslims have been staunchly homophobic from time immemorial. But is it enough to make Uganda or Muslims and blacks in general our allies?”

    Muslims have not been “staunchly homophobic from time immemorial”, as I have pointed out, futilely it would seem, many times. That Africans are and have been is perhaps something for Putin and other “whites” to reflect on. Muslims absorbed far more of Classical Western Civ. than Europeans did (bathing, for example) while Africans take enthusiastically to the uniquely homo-hating Jewbook.

    • Posted March 7, 2014 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

      An acquantaince of mine is a staunch supporter of the idea that the near-term answer for white survival is for us all to become Muslims. Decadent materialism thus destroyed in favour of Qu’ranic transcendence and ascestism, white ethnonationalism would be free to express flourish within an Islamic order.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted March 7, 2014 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        But ethnonationalism does not flourish within an Islamic order. Islam has been an even greater force of cultural and national disintegration and racial amalgamation than Christianity. Beyond that, it is an alien creed to the European mind. Why not go back to our own roots. We have to do this ourselves alone.

      • Mark T
        Posted March 11, 2014 at 12:33 am | Permalink

        Are you serious? I would sooner roast in hell than take up the religion of nomadic Bedouins roaming around in the desert regions. I suppose we could become Animists? / sarc

    • Maxwell
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

      That Jewbook was predated by myriad mythopoeic conceptions of men and women many of which were hardly sympathetic toward queers.

  5. Gilles V
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    Congratulations to CC for exposing the overall ‘cheer-leading’ mentality of many WN’s today (myself included).

    It’s a sad situation really that people can’t distinguish between Europeans and ‘the East’. Not only communism but the existence of the Gulags and the mass slaughter in their lands should point to the different cultural divides we are dealing with. Never in history have Europeans displayed such an inhuman disregard for human dignity — not even the Romans at their worst would descend to those levels of maliciousness.

  6. Tibus Heth
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    One thing I don’t get about Yockey is his belief that Russia/ Soviet Union would be able to “save” the West. Spengler identified Russia as belonging to a “new” culture/civilization and that the Wests “Faustian” destiny was different one ie Infinite Space ect. How could Yockey reconcile the two? I get that he thought America was the Anti-Western force in the world but how would Russia be any different? Russias “westerness” is the result of profound psuedomorphois by it’s leadership. Their conception of the world/being is different from Faustian mans. It would be like trying to save the West by way of the “dead” Hindu or Magian culture. The two dont fit together except through that Western psedomorphosis. What am I not getting? It has been awhile since I read imperium but I am reading Spengler alot now and Yockey was identifed as “Neo-Spenglerian.”

    • Sandy
      Posted March 7, 2014 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

      I am of the opinion that Yockey’s Russia stopped at the Ural Mountains and that Yockey’s Europe would stretch from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals and no further.

    • K R Bolton
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

      Yockey held that Russian military occupation was of lesser danger to European culture than American occupation. He also thought that the USSR should be encouraged to push the USA and its allies out of Europe, and was willing to assist in a guerrilla operation. He believed that long term Russian occupation of Europe would Europeanise the Russians, and believed there might be a synthesis of Russian and Western cultures.
      Even Spengler held out the possibility of a Russo-German alliance with the USSR against the plutocracies, as did other ‘conservative revolutionaries’. He advocated an extension of relations with the USSR.
      Have a read of my chapter on Spengler and Russia in “Spengler: thoughts and perspectives”, vol. 10, (London: Black Front Press, 2012). Also my article at C-C on Yockey and Russia.

  7. Marc Bahn
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    “To be consistent, White Nationalists should support Svoboda and Right Sector and not Putin’s Russia.”

    I don’t think so. The Washington-directed and Jewish-orchestrated disaster at attempted revolution that’s going on in Ukraine is less in our interest than is Putin’s perfectly appropriate response. The great evil power of our day is headquartered in Washington, not Moscow. That these nationalists have no problem further empowering the regime that’s killing us is a statement of their worthlessness. Yeah, let’s work for international Jewry and imperial Washington to provoke Russia – even more. Yuck!

    • Lew
      Posted March 7, 2014 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

      Firstly, at every opportunity, Putin pays homage to the official “holocaust” narrative promulgated by the Jews. On many occasions he said that the holocaust was the most abominable atrocity in history, and the Red Army put an end to this horror. Since the cult of victory in WWII and the glorification of the Soviet past are the main pillars of national identity in modern Russia, this implies that Russian identity and patriotism are not only not opposed to Jewish interests but, on the contrary, are directly in line with them.

      Secondly, anti-Semitism is very weak in Putin’s Russia, and Jews feel quite comfortable and welcome. Jewish life is flourishing at a level comparable only to the early aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution. A popular Russian-Jewish crooner, Iosif Kobzon, said not so long ago that “Jews are currently experiencing a Renaissance in Russia.” Furthermore, before the presidential elections in 2012, the chairman of the Council of Russian Jews proclaimed his full support to Putin and expressed his confidence that all Jews in Russia will vote for him. He even said that he doesn’t know a single Jew in Russia who would be against Putin.

  8. Carpenter
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    There are some decent things to take away from this essay, but there’s a lot of misinformation and confusion as well.

    I second the strong doubtfulness felt by a poster above regarding Muscovy as majority Tatar. If anything, many Tatars appear fully European. The author says at several points that he knows many Russians are White, but then goes on to refer to them as Non-European throughout. That’s simply not true.

    Here’s what I think we can say about American identity vs. Russian identity. American identity was for much of its history clearly referring to White Americans. If you weren’t White, you weren’t American. That PERCEPTION has obviously changed. True Russians are most definitely Slavs, are most definitely White. However, I think it is fair to say that especially since Soviet times “Russian” has started to become something more descriptive of citizenship than ethnicity, at times. So, in that sense, the author is correct. But that same thing has happened all over the European world! I’ve seen Africans refer to themselves as Englishmen. Should we say that the English are non-White? “British” falls even more clearly into that sad state of affairs.

    As far as not jumping on the Russian imperialism bandwagon goes, I think he’s right. The Russian government is clearly doing its own thing, and it’s not necessarily our thing. But the Russians are not European slant… Didn’t feel right.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 7, 2014 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

      Interestingly enough, the Soviets, as part of their divide and conquer strategy, were very attentive to different ethnic and tribal distinctions. My question for the author is: before Bolshevism, were various Mongol and Turkic tribal groups considered Russian if they spoke Russian and belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church?

      I think you are conflating two senses of Tatar: in the past, Tatar referred to all the Mongol and Turkic peoples of Asia, whereas the Crimean Tatars of today are but one small group. The Crimean Tatars are a mixed-race population with white and Asiatic traits. Just do a Google image search.

      I think that the author is careful to distinguish race and national identity. Racially, a Russian may be white, but the Russian national identity is not integrally white, and from its origins, it referred to a mixed racial population that was Orthodox Christian and ruled from Moscow.

      • reiner arischer Tor
        Posted March 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

        It depends on what you refer to as “mixed race”. Are Italians, for example, “mixed race”? Sicilians and especially Sardinians have quite different genetic makeup than the rest of Europe, Sicilians even show traces of Arab ancestry (for obvious reasons), and Sardinians apparently have basically no Indo-European ancestry (or at least they lack admixture from a huge conqueror and race-replacer population which is present in all of Europe with maybe a third of the total genetic stock on average). Did Mussolini think Sardinians or Sicilians were Italians? Or there are the Balkan peoples, also with some Middle Eastern admixture.

        Russians are, however, clearly somewhat distinct from Western Europeans (even the non-mixed Novgorod stock would have been different, just as a Scotsman is different from an Austrian), but not really mixed race in the sense Brazilians are. They are a mixed race in the sense Balkan peoples or Sicilians are, i.e. mixed with some populations who are themselves relatively closely related to Europeans. And even that admixture seems to be relatively little, as far as I know, because the Mongols didn’t stay in Russia, they merely destroyed the cities (Medieval cities never contributed to the modern White stock, because they couldn’t reproduce due to very high mortality, so this must have had relatively little effect), and then left, and were content extracting tribute from the local Russian princes. They started to mix with Russians when they were conquered by the Russians. Some Tatars converted and assimilated to Russians, and they were then considered more or less Russians themselves (after a couple of centuries and after a lot of intermarriages), like Rachmaninoff was a descendant of such Tatar aristocrats (and also Russian aristocrats who intermarried with them) who converted to Orthodox Christianity.

        • Emile Durand
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:59 am | Permalink

          “Mongols didn’t stay in Russia, they merely destroyed the cities … and then left, and were content extracting tribute from the local Russian princes. They started to mix with Russians when they were conquered by the Russians.”

          No. That statement is historically inaccurate. While they were in total control of Slavic lands, Tatar-Mongols were converting to Orthodox Christianity in large numbers. At the time when Muscovy was still paying the tribute to the Golden Horde, the former already had a significantly Christianized Tatar-Mongol population. The crucial point here is that since nomads don’t have a strong culture or religion of their own, in most cases they readily accept the culture of sedentary populations which they come into contact with. Therefore, even though Tatar-Mongols were the rulers this did not in any way prevent them from converting to the religion and culture of those whom they ruled.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted March 9, 2014 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

            This makes sense. The Mongols who conquered Persia and Afghanistan became Muslims. The Mongols who conquered China were absorbed by the Chinese culture.

          • reiner arischer Tor
            Posted March 9, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

            But there was no Mongol population (or even garrison) in any of the Russian cities. Not to mention villages.

            Besides, what was the population density of nomads and what was population density for sedentary populations like Russians? Even if all Tatars were absorbed in Russia (which is clearly not the case), they would have made up just a very small fraction of the population. But it didn’t happen. The Tatars moved to the Volga and Crimea, but they didn’t stay in Russia proper. There were two types of admixture: the first was with Russian slaves (this could have resulted in blond Tatars like the Ukrainian oligarch Akhmetov, although probably many of the nomads roaming the Eastern European plains were already white to begin with), the second after the Russians conquested Tatarstan, but by that time Russians multipled in numbers and Tatars were still small in numbers. Simply because a nomadic or half-nomadic population is bound to be much smaller than a fully sedentary one.

            Given that apparently Southern Europeans also have a few percentage points of West African ancestry (see here), I guess a few percentage points of Mongol ancestry cannot possibly change the whiteness of Russians. Or can it? This is a can of worms most easily dealt with in a way so as to accept Russians and Spaniards as whites in America, but not allowing whites to migrate to one another’s countries, and keeping their separate national identities in Europe. Or you are of course free to pick fights with Southern and Eastern Europeans in America, that should be your decision, I simply cannot see how that would be beneficial in our present situation.

      • Emile Durand
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

        “Before Bolshevism, were various Mongol and Turkic tribal groups considered Russian if they spoke Russian and belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church?”

        Yes, absolutely. Not only in Muscovy and the Tsardom of Russia, but also during Russian Empire where the (artificial) Russian identity was being promoted. The Russian identity during also the Russian Empire was for all intents and pusposes trans-racial – i.e., nothing of the sort like French or German identity. Even speaking Russian was not a necessary prerequisite indeed. Only converting to the Orthodox faith was enough in most cases. Here are several examples:

        1) Pyotr Bagration, a prominent general in the Russian army who took part in Napoleonic wars, was Georgian.

        2) Nikolay Karamzin, a famous Russian historian and actually one of the main promulgators of the “Russian” identity and the false idea of Russia being the rightful heir of Kievan Rus, was of Tatar descent. “Karamzin” = “Kara Murza”.

        3) The House of Yusupov, the most prominent member of which is Felix Yusupov who participated in the murder of Rasputin, is also of Tatar ancestry. “Yusup” = “Yusuf”

  9. Catiline
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    CC and Monsieur Durand both deserve high praise for publishing and writing this article respectively.

    The various commentary regarding the Ukrainian crisis was beginning to look like a Rorschach test; telling us more about the commentator than about the matter commented upon.

  10. Lucian Tudor
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    I must say, this essay is riddled with erroneous points and outdated ideas. First of all, no, Russian identity is not like Brazilian or American identity. There are in fact two different words Russians use to say “Russian”; the first is russkiye, which designates ethnic Russians in particular, and the other is rossiyane, which designates simply those who are Russian by citizenship. Russians also clearly identify themselves as being a white Indo-European people (or European in the more generic sense which is not limited to the West), which can be verified by any Russian nationalist. Apparently all these high doses of nothing but Dugin is clouding some people’s understanding of Russia, because I would have also thought that Russian thinkers like Nikolai Berdyaev and Vladimir Avdeyev would make it obvious that there are Russians who view the Russian people as closely related with other White European peoples. So actually, yes, Russians do have a sense of being a distinct, white ethnicity, and Russian nationalism is all about working to benefit and protect ethnic Russians.

    Secondly, the Mongols did not actually mix too much with the people they conquered, so there is actually not much Asiatic mixture in Russians as others here have noted. Many historians have already documented this fact. For example, Alfred Rambaud wrote in a book titled Russia that “as to the amount of Mongol or Tatar blood mixed with the blood of the Russians, it must have been very small: the aristocracy of the two countries may have contracted marriages, a certain number of mourzas may have become Russian princes by their conversion to orthodoxy, but the two races, as a whole, remained strangers. Even today, while the autochthonous Finns continue to be Russified, the Tatar cantons, even though converted to Christianity, are still Tatar.”

    That being said, no, the Bolshevik Revolution was not a revolt of non-whites against a white upper-class. This is an absurd myth created by Western Nordicists and Anglo-Saxonists in the early 20th century, who not only had a bias against all Eastern and Southern Europeans (not just Russians) and wanted to portray them as inferior to Northern Europeans, but also had a ideological and class bias in favor of the upper classes across all European and American society. The actual nature of Communist ideology and whether the Bolsheviks were genuine or not is a different matter, and irrelevant here, so I won’t discuss it. But one thing that should be noted is that once Stalin got into power he changed the nature of Communism, making it more compatible with traditional Russian goals and attitudes. Furthermore, Russians accomplished a lot during the time of the Soviet Union, so it is understandable why they would look to their Soviet past with admiration and pride, even though it may being annoying for the rest of us to gaze upon. The displays of pro-Soviet pride that you mention are thus merely Russians displaying pride in their past achievements, and the chauvinism that goes along with it is not as unnatural as you make it seem, for we can see all other Europeans who built empires or subjected or Europeans have had similar reactions.

    Honestly, if you want to make a decent critique of Russians, portraying them as a horde of non-whites who are capable of nothing but destruction and death for Europeans is not the way to go. As for Putin, I believe that he truly is a genuine type of conservative and that his intention is to conserve Russia as it is, culturally and ethnically. He may not be the most ideal choice for Russia from our perspective, and there are some things about him that are disagreeable, but nonetheless he is far better than anything we have in the West. I would prefer something closer to the Identitarian idea than what Putin offers, but there are a few reasons to sympathize with him.

    • Emile Durand
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      “There are in fact two different words Russians use to say “Russian”; the first is russkiye, which designates ethnic Russians in particular, and the other is rossiyane, which designates simply those who are Russian by citizenship.”

      Yes, I am aware of that. But since it doesn’t change the point of the article in any way I did not want make it longer and more complicated. Shortly, both of those terms are essentially trans-racial. I guess the trans-racial character of “Rossiyane” does not need further explanation. And the term “Russkiye” is also trans-racial due to the mixed-race character of its original substratum which it came to refer to.
      Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation to better illustrate the point. Imagine that Mexico conquers China and Africa and creates an empire. And of course, the Mexican conquerors feel the need to create a novel imperial identity which will hold all the different racial and ethnic groups of the new empire together. And let’s imagine they coin a term “Mexicanite” to designate all the subjects of the Mexican Empire, while the term “Mexican” continues to designate the original stock which made those conquests that lead to the creation of the multi-racial empire. However, that very original stock was already mixed-race from the very beginning and the term “Mexican” denoted a trans-racial identity at its very inception. The same goes for the terms “Rossiyane” and “Russkie”.

      “Honestly, if you want to make a decent critique of Russians, portraying them as a horde of non-whites who are capable of nothing but destruction and death for Europeans is not the way to go.”

      That was never my intention and I seriously doubt that one gets such an impression from the text. I state several times that there are many white Russians who are our natural allies. And so are there many white Latin Americans who are also our natural allies. But as the presence of whites among Latin Americans does not make ALL Latin Americans our brethren and allies, so doesn’t the presence of many white Russians make ALL Russians white.

      • Lucian Tudor
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

        Your points here are irrelevant because you still fail to offer any valid evidence for the notion that Russians have any significant Mongoloid mixture. You do realize that just about everything you’re saying relies on the notion that Russians have significant racial mixture (which many of us find unconvincing), right? You can bring up all the hypothetical scenarios you’d like to make me understand what you’re saying, but the fact is that the issue is that I perfectly understand what you were saying but I disagree with it because your claims are not supported by historical fact. That being said, white identity is not about being totally racially pure. Nearly all European groups have some level of insignificant amount of mixture from other races that occurred in previous eras, but this has nothing to do with their identity as White Europeans. Likewise, ethnic Russians in general have a White Indo-European Slavic identity, regardless of any minute Asiatic mixture they may have; they do not identify themselves as Asiatic, nor are they culturally (this fact can be verified not only by historians, but also by any typical Russian nationalist).

        • Stronza
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

          Those of you who understand DNA tests for ethnicity, isn’t a simple matter of looking this up for the various sections of Russia? (I wouldn’t know how to interpret what I read.)

          Also, I know plenty of Ukrainians here in N. Amerika who look like gypsies. You couldn’t hope to find blacker-haired, browner-skinned people if you tried. But they identify with Ukrainians, most of whom look very much different. The modern Crimean Tatars are actually more white-looking.

          Indeed, there’s more to it than having that Nordic look.

        • Razvan
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

          I am sure that in the next few years such questions will be answered by genetics.

          Till then, one can only remark too Asian traits of Russian imperialism. As Romanians, we should know what it meant. The Russian Empire made promises, promises to be broken when convenient. So I wouldn’t place any hope in a en-lighted imperial rule over Europe. Russians need to clarify this Asian, anti Europe stance. Fast. Because if someone takes any major Russian writer from the last two hundreds years he will find too many anti European remarks, hypocrisies, misconceptions, lies. Dugin hasn’t materialized out of thin air.

          Now let me tell you, this empire still fights back, but it will implode. Less than fifty years ago they were marching in Prague. Twenty years ago they were trying to get Kishinev and couldn’t. They are not able to march in Kiev, yet they are menacing the tiny Moldova.

          Instead of retreating their colonists from other countries they are menacing.
          The Russian empire is exhausted and its legacy is gruesome. The Russian Whites need to abandon the most hated Empire in the history of Europe and build their own state to serve their ethnic interests.

          If they maintain the Asian idea that they are the masters and warriors, and everyone else should feed them, then all the deals are off. Exactly the same for the jews.

          • reiner arischer Tor
            Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

            As Romanians, we should know what it meant. The Russian Empire made promises, promises to be broken when convenient.

            I’m shocked, shocked to find that a great power broke its promises to a small country… However, you might be just as shocked to find out that Romania also broke some promises in the past here and there.

            Romania was allied to the Central Powers in 1914. It joined the First World War on the side of the highest bidder, which happened to be the Triple Entente. After the Russian Empire collapsed, in spring 1918 Romania made a separate peace with the Central Powers, and in exchange was given Bessarabia (but lost a few mountains on the Hungarian border). In early November 1918 Romania declared war and attacked once more the already collapsing Central Powers, heroically managing to do that a few days before they capitulated. Correct me if I lost count of it, but it seems Romania changed sides three times within that same war. Fortunately they managed to end on the winning side, and ended the war with something like triple the territory they had before.

            In the Second World War, Romania was much better. It started the war as a French ally. When France collapsed, Romania came to the Axis fold, only to change sides once more in 1944 when Soviet troops were marching towards Bucharest. So in the Second World War Romania changed sides only twice, or 33% less than a quarter century earlier – as I said, much better than in the First World War. (To be fair, Hungary also tried to change sides in late 1944, and it was more an accident of having lost the first war and thus having irredentist dreams together that led us to the German side before the war.)

            Romanians are also Orthodox like Russians… I’m not sure if there’s a pattern here.

            OK, so I think keeping old historical grudges (which mean nothing if all of our nations, including Russians, Romanians, Hungarians, Germans, French, etc. are going extinct, which is bound to happen if the Jews can impose their will on us) is ultimately stupid. Yes, there is a lot of bad things one can say about any of our nations, I’m sure this includes us Hungarians. Yet wouldn’t it make some sense to forget these old animosities at least until after the enemy is defeated?

          • Razvan
            Posted March 10, 2014 at 4:25 am | Permalink

            Wow Reiner, your version of history is absolutly fantastic. As the empires were keeping their promises.

            Now let me tell you, when you have people and territories under two imperial occupation Russian and Austro-Hungary, what can anyone do? Follow the national interest, I guess.

            WW1: 1914-1916 was a period of neutrality. Romania itself wasn’t siding with anyone. Both empires had Romanian territories and population. In 1918 Romanians were victorious on the battle fields Marasti, Marasesti, Oituz (my granddads all fought there) the Russians, our supposed allies, started to kill and steal both in Moldavia and Basarabia. What to do, what to do? Fight the Russians at Galati (a very interesting battle), and Iasi and make peace with the Austro-Hungary. Put things in order and fight back against Hungary. No one changed parts here. We fought for our right to exist in one Romanian state. One million Romanian died for that. You should respect that. They were ready to fight then, as we are ready to fight now. No matter how genocidal, and incompetent the Hohenzollern, (or the current political class for that matter) really were.

            WWII: I remember you that the supposed alliances were crafted by a German king, the treasonous Carol II of Hohenzollern and his son, the treasonous king Michael I. They were changing parts and they assassinated our leaders. Not Codreanu, not Sima, not Antonescu, and not Romanian people changed parts. (Germany should thank to the obtuse politics of Bismarck and his support toward a moribund empire).

            There is a good peace written by Douglas Reed that explains perfectly how Horty blackmailed Hitler, menacing he will ally with Stalin if he doesn’t gets Transylvania.

            So don’t talk about morality, when Horty promised to behave in the Northern Transylvania, while he started to kill and terrorize Romanian civil population (which was the majority population in that area, and by the way, still is). Do you really want to talk about the bloody orgy than commenced after that occupation? Don’t talk about changing sides. When you spill Romanian blood don’t expect loyalty, but retribution.

          • reiner arischer Tor
            Posted March 12, 2014 at 6:39 am | Permalink

            This would be an interesting conversation, I started to write an answer but realized it’s totally off topic here and would not much interest other readers.

            My point was simply that bordering nations often have very bad memories of each other (with the Russians taking Bessarabia at least twice, plus their meddling in Transnistria), Romanians might not be fond of them. That’s not a reason to consider Russians “non-White” any more than to consider Romanians or Hungarians non-White based on their hatred of each other.

          • Razvan
            Posted March 12, 2014 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

            Reiner, the historical details would be off topic. But the idea that every nation should live peacefully on its very own ancestral home is at the core of the subject. Europe is by definition tribal. If you want endless frictions you start to mix two or more tribes. If the race is involved, war is a sure bet.

            Some Russian, like Dugin, and also some commentators here on CC, look like they can not conceive a Russian identity without the notion of empire. Which is biologically destructive to the Russian people. And that they have the divine right to conquer/liberate their neighbors even from themselves violently. This is indeed Asian. I remember the tatar fervor in a poem by Maiakovsky. Where rape as a mean to instill a new life in the European womenfolk by the harsh barbarian from the soviet steppe was described as an saintly act. While the hooves of the horses are splattering the blood of the European men.
            You can’t get more tatar than that.

            The problem is not the degree of tatar admixture in the general population (this is strictly a Russian business). But the degree of tatar thinking of the Russian elite and this is an European issue. When you start to rave about your natural borders are on Vistula or Oder or whatever convenient for the time being (probably the Dublineers can’t wait too to be liberated by an army skillfully motivated by Maiakovsky’s and Eisenstein’s so the “natural border” might change).

            See, they already started to bash the Western decadence, and how viscerally conservative certain leaders are (except their long term friendship with various convicted felons) and the fact that their kids are marrying in … the decadent Holland.

            The fact that there are so few Russians able to say we want only our country not an empire is a huge issue that justifies the soft American power in Europe. This is the core issue. Is this equally destructive? Maybe, but central and eastern Europeans do not know that yet. They know how destructive the Russian power really was.

            Anyway I don’t want to live or die in CIS, nor have freedom of movements with Caucasus and Central Asia. Really.

  11. Armor
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    The author has a French name… Can I hope for a French version of that piece, so I can link to it on French blogs ?

    About the Ukraine crisis, I tend to adopt the point of view of the latest author I have read. Before this article, I had just read an interview of Aymeric Chauprade (French National Front) who rejects Svoboda and Right Sector and sees Russia as a useful counterweight to America (=to the Jews).

    I understand why White Nationalists in the West should not reject Svoboda and Right Sector, but I don’t see how praising some of Putin’s policies can be dangerous to the white race outside Russia.

  12. Carl
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

    Good article, but all the Russians I’ve seen and met seem white to me. Their great music is white, their literature is white. Indeed the movie Alexander Nevsky has enough Viking imagery to launch a Hobbit quest.

    White Nationalism as we see it in the West doesn’t seem to apply east of the Vistula River.

    Oh, that we could find common ground and free Constantinople! Why is that so hard to do?

    • Razvan
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

      The saint Nevsky was a friend and vassal of the Golden Horde, and sworn brother of Sartaq Khan, while fighting hard against the Germans or Swedes. It looks more like Great Asian Tales than a viking saga.

      It’s hard to liberate Constantinople because that would mean Russian Imperial occupation over more than half of Europe. i.e. death of Europe.

      • Jaego
        Posted March 8, 2014 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

        He consciously chose to fight the Swedes because if they triumphed, his culture would be destroyed. As has been said, the Mongols were really very different. They preferred to live out on the steppes with their flocks and didn’t care much what the Russians did as long as order was kept and the tribute paid. That doesn’t mean the Russians liked being under the Mongol yoke, and if the tribute was short there was be hell to pay. But horrible as it sounds, they really were preferable to the West. An interesting and discomfiting meditation.

        • Razvan
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:33 am | Permalink

          He rode the Mongol tide. Nothing more, nothing less. Russian princes married Mongol princesses. Why there was such a strong opposition against him from the boyars and merchants?
          Was he defending his people against the Germans and their allies or was he destroying in fact the Eastern Balts (now extinct peoples)?
          For the Russian history the two things seem to bear no difference. (Of course Christianity played its role but that’s another story.)

          Nevsky put the Russians on a colliding course with the rest of European people. For eight hundred years this course was unchallenged, at least seriously by anyone in Moscow.

          If we will see the Russians vigorously protesting in Moscow against Russian imperialism and genocide, then we will know that we are entering in a new era for the White man.

  13. eiszeit
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    This article is misguided on so many issues.

    1. Genetic Asiatic influence in the Russian population is minimal at best. When the Asiatics invaded and raped Slavic women, the women mostly aborted their babies. Russia today is Whiter than any Western country apart from Iceland.

    2. The author insinuates that the West was always “advancing” while Russia was always “backwards.” Does the author not realize by now that Western ideals of “democracy” and “progress” are absolute poison to our people? Does the author not know that the Russians were right to mostly reject these ideals throughout the 18th and 19th centuries? Western liberalism is what got us here to begin with! Whites should be so lucky if we had a Tsar and an Okhrana!

    3. Regarding the jewish takeover of Russia in 1917; well at least the Russians violently fought the Jews and tried to prevent them from taking over their country. The French, Germans, Americans, etc. blindly gave the Jews everything they demanded, and the Jews took over their countries without firing a shot!

    4. Regarding the Russians celebrating their “victory” in WWII: these celebrations do not stem from love of Jews or Bolshevism, but from love of their concept of the Motherland. Intellectually, yes, these celebrations are hollow, but Russians don’t realize that. All they know is that they won the conflict and that Russia still exists while Germany is flooded with Turks and blacks. Same thing goes for their love of Soviet memorials; from their perspective it’s not about loving the tenets of Karl Marx, it’s about Russian nationalism and glory.

    5. Russians hate “fascism” not because they view it as a White ideal, but because they view it as an invasive Western ideal, which it ironically is. Can we really blame them? How many times did Westerners invade Russia, since the middle ages? Dozens? Hundreds? And how many times did Russia invade the West? Anyone?

    6. Svoboda just announced that they intend to build a museum dedicated to Jewish suffering during the lolocaust. Anyone who thinks that either Right Sector or Svoboda aren’t Jew tools stirring shit up is simply misguided.

    7. The past is mostly irrelevant. What matters is the present and the future. Yes, non-thinking Russian slaves commanded by Jews destroyed Germany in 1945, but the situation has changed, and we must adapt to it and not hold a grudge against modern Russians, who may be the only viable opportunity for the continued existence of Whites in the world.

    What’s preventing White Westerners from moving en masse into Russia and Aryanizing the already mostly-Aryan populace there? Um yeah, nothing. Just because Russia was never truly European in the past doesn’t mean it can’t be transformed into something European in the near future.

    • Razvan
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

      Regarding the point 7:
      “Peres and Putin to Open World’s Largest Jewish Museum”
      “Peres, Putin Inaugurate Unique Jewish Museum”
      “In Big New Museum, Russia Has a Message for Jews: We Like You”

    • Bobo
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:51 am | Permalink

      “Russia today is Whiter than any Western country apart from Iceland.”

      White as in Caucasian (*if* including the -stans, tatars, chechen people etc. in that group), maybe, white as in European white, no.

    • Emile Durand
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 11:28 am | Permalink

      Regarding point 4:

      Yes, their victory cult and veneration of the Soviet past are of course not due to their love of Jews. In order to be anti-white one does not have to love Jews. Arabs rape white women and hate Jews at the same time. The main pillar of modern Russia’s national pride and identity is glorification of something anti-white. And that is conclusive enough.

      • Justin Huber
        Posted March 11, 2014 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

        America does the same thing with its veneration of our “victory” in World War II. It’s probably easier for an American white nationalist to disown our participation in World War II though. After all, there was little chance that our country would have ever been invaded. Russia, on the other hand, was a different story. Furthermore, Hitler didn’t seem to like Slavic people in spite of their whiteness. If he did have anything positive to say it was usually in the context that such and such Slavic peoples were actually more Germanic than Slavic. That being said, the Soviet Union, with the Russians as their vanguard, may very well have been ready to invade Western Europe when Hitler launched Barbarossa.

  14. Michael O'Meara
    Posted March 7, 2014 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    This article is a good example of WN delusion about Russia.

  15. Greg Johnson
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Useful background on Ukrainian nationalism and Svoboda in The Occidental Observer:

    • Razvan
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

      Andrew Joyce makes a huge mistake with such affirmations “ending only in 1921 with the absorption of most of Ukraine by the Soviet Union, and the remainder by Poland and Romania.”
      Bokovina, which united with Romania in 1918 was an old Romanian teritory, with a Romanian majority.
      It was part of Principality of Moldavia until 1775, when the Habsburgic Empire occupied the region after the treaty of Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca and the assassination of Grigore III Ghica of Moldavia. One of the most disgusting stories about theft, killings, deportations, colonizations, denationalization. Three empires conspiring against some unknown Prince.
      Bukovina was Romanian and united with the Fatherland by the free will of the people, not a part of Ukraine “absorbed” by Romania. This is misleading and offensive. As subtle as the Russian diplomacy.

  16. Greg Johnson
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    A very sensible article on the Ukraine crisis by Max Musson in Western Spring:

  17. reiner arischer Tor
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    If Russians are so corrupt because of genetics (which is probably at least partially true), then so is the case with the Ukrainians. According to Transparency International, in 2013 Belarus ranked 123rd, Russia 127th, and the Ukraine just 144th on the Corruption Perceptions Index. So Ukrainians are even more corrupt than Russians, and Belorussians just a little bit better.

    I think the border of the white race will inevitable be somewhat arbitrary (e.g. Greeks are white but Turks are not), but I think one of the least plausible demarkations is that between the Russians and Ukrainians. Until the Moscow dialect (now called “standard Russian”) started to spread, there was no way a priori to tell if it would stop at the present Ukrainian and Belorussian borders (it didn’t, even Kiev was fully Russian speaking a mere hundred years ago, and most people in Kiev can still speak Russian at least or almost as well as Ukrainian), so the border between Russians and Ukrainians is even more arbitrary than either between Ukrainians and Poles or between Russians and the Muslim peoples east of the Russians.

    It’s also interesting to note that the original Bolshevik policy in the Ukraine was that of Ukrainization, until 1931, when it was reversed. Even after 1931 it was compulsory at schools, either as a foreign language (in Russian schools) or (especially in the western and a bit less frequently in the central parts of the country) as the language of education.

    Russians are obviously proud of the USSR period (there is mostly nostalgia for the later period, when ethnic Russians ruled the country, although it was as inefficient as under the Jews, the government nevertheless used a third of its gold reserves in the early 1960s to pay for grain imports – a bit different from the Holodomor, I would think), when Russia as a country was at the apex of its power. However, Putin financed a big movie about the White Admiral Kolchak, and there’s also a cult of Nicholaus II murdered by the Bolsheviks. Apparently Putin thinks that instead of dismantling the USSR, Gorbachev and Yeltsin should have transformed into a traditional Orthodox Russian state.

    • Razvan
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      My dad had a bad word about JFK for saving USSR from its crass incompetence by giving them grain just enough to keep Europe occupied for few more decades.

      Regarding the movie “The Admiral”, there are a scene where Kolchak and his mistress are both saying that they have Turkish blood. More interesting than that in “The Burning Sun” of Nikita Mihalkov, the second part of the movie, where the ethnically diverse lot of a Guard Regiment are preparing to fight the German invaders. I would like to see Mr. Trevor Lynch commenting on this movie.
      Also the movie “The Tsar” (directed by Pavel Lungin) about the Ivan IV is very interesting – it describes many moments commented in this article (the savage destruction of the city of Novgorod).

      I don’t believe that Dugin is the only imperialist in town. I don’t believe he is most prominent one either. It’s an entire elite that want their empire back.

      Russian Orthodox Church has always been a tool of the Empire. A tool of denationalisation much more dangerous than the communist propaganda. It has nothing to do with the church supposed conservatism. At least the Patriarch Alexey, shamelessly displaying his Rolexes and limos doesn’t look much of a conservative.,

    • Emile Durand
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      “If Russians are so corrupt because of genetics (which is probably at least partially true), then so is the case with the Ukrainians. According to Transparency International, in 2013 Belarus ranked 123rd, Russia 127th, and the Ukraine just 144th on the Corruption Perceptions Index. So Ukrainians are even more corrupt than Russians, and Belorussians just a little bit better.”

      Here is what I wrote in the article: “Belarus and Ukraine have been exceptions, mainly due to the fact that even after gaining independence they could never properly throw off Russian influence.”
      Ukraine did indeed manage once to break free from Russia in 2004 and embarked on the way of other post-Soviet states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) in creating a prosperous and civilized society, but that process was soon reversed by heavy Russian pressure and Russia’s continuous meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs.

      • reiner arischer Tor
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

        Are you stating that Russians are corrupt due to genetics but Ukrainians and Belorussians are merely because of “Russian influence”? Are you saying that Ukrainian policemen demand cash payment even if you did nothing wrong because of “Russian influence”? Do you think that the Svoboda politician whose daughter throws a party here (gotta admit all three girls are smokin’ hot!) and who made something like USD 4000 (40,000 hrivnyas) last year is so corrupt (merely looking at his daughter’s picture I can tell you his income is way more than that) because of “Russian influence”?

        Now, I bet you Ukrainians are genetically as corrupt as Russians (actually more so, according to Transparency International, but I’m willing to be more generous to them), and that’s not the result of some mysterious “Russian influence”. They are not any different from Russians in that. (Western Ukrainians might be different, but then again, we have the same problem as before: Ukrainian identity includes Eastern Ukrainians as well. Moreover, when I talked to people who visited the Ukraine, already met those corrupt policemen in the Western regions.) Since the biggest Ukrainian oligarchs are mostly Jews, but then there’s Akhmetov, who is a blond Volga Tatar; the five richest people in Russia in descending order are an Uzbek, three Jews, and a half-Azerbaijani, I also think that if they really could get rid of Jews and Central Asians, both Ukrainians and Russians would be less corrupt.

        I think anybody with a little bit of objectivity will agree with me in that. Actually, I doubt objectively thinking Ukrainians can disagree with it. We Hungarians are also very corrupt, way more corrupt than Germans for example, but as it happens, way less corrupt than Ukrainians. Scandinavians are even less corrupt than Germans. Do we have to debate that? Also, Russian/Ukrainian corruption is more similar to Hungarian corruption (and I don’t doubt similar to what little corruption there is in Western Europe) as it tends to be members of an old boys’ network favoring each other, as opposed to African corruption which is mostly about people favoring their extended family members. (Still, the quantity of Russian corruption has a quality of its own, which sets them apart not only from Germans but also from Hungarians.)

        I also bet you that even white Russians are quite different from Western Europeans even without any admixture. (I had made that point in an earlier comment.) But they are still more closely related to us than Arabs. So my solution is simply to accept that while Russians could be white in an American context, they need to be kept out of Europe. On the other hand Ukrainians have no right to rule over the Crimea which was won by mostly Russian blood and is populated by Russians and Crimean Tatars. My ideal solution would be the one which would deny the neocons both of their goals: Russia gains the Crimea, the rest of the Ukraine gets ruled by Banderists who could then transform the Ukraine into a nuclear power independent from both Russia and the EU, with anti-Jewish sentiment running high in both Russia and the Ukraine. And once the EU gets broken up, intra-European migrations should also be reduced to a minimum, and even reversed where possible.

    • theodora
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

      Lots of info, not so much insight.

      Russians are immensely proud of European St. Petersburg, Putin’s birthplace, and of their ancient Orthodox Christian heritage. Putin is a real White man and as such thinks in symbols and in concrete terms; he takes what he needs from ideology, like everything else, without being owned by it. Paying lip service is just that. There’s no doubt Putin looks to Europe more than to Asia, without going off and forgetting that side of things either. Just look at him with Merkel.

  18. Posted March 8, 2014 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    “If we are to rejoice at Russian traditionalism and see them as allies simply because of that, then why don’t we see Muslims as allies and see hope for the West in their traditionalism as well?” (Émile Durand)

    Yes, we should see Muslims as potential allies. We should also see Latin American indigenous movements, Japanese and Chinese nationalists, black Nationalists, even Israeli Nationalists as allies. Remember that “allies” means we work together against a common enemy. This doesn’t mean that because we’re allies, that Latin Americans, Japanese, black Africans, Jews get to flood America and Europe and tell us how to live. It means we will work together, because working together is necessary to defeat the true enemy of all people on earth today.

    This enemy is the Anglo-American-Judeo elites. Most people reading this already know about the Judeo component. But what most White-Nationalists miss is the Anglo-American component. These are the globalist elites who meet at Bilderberg meetings and who belong to groups such as the Pilgrims Society. This group is very Masonic and tend to be concentrated in the old Eastern Establishment of America and the British Aristocracy. I recommend this article as a good introduction to the Anglo-American elite :

    It is imperative that we make allies with other anti-globalist forces in the world today. It is also an imperative that people in White Nationalism become aware that Jews aren’t their only enemy. In fact, I believe that the Anglo-American elites are more dangerous than the Jews alone. Everybody knows about the Jews. The Jews do the most visible work for the globalist elites. The reason they’re up-front in the globalist collective is because conflict appeals to them. They follow a faith and culture in which in-group out-group conflict is part and parcel of being who they are. The real power behind them are much smarter. The real power behind the Jews don’t care about ideology or being praised as “God’s chosen;” they care about building a global government (with them at the top of pyramid).

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

      At this late stage, I have no patience for talk of Freemasonry, or theories that the Jews might just be front men (and fall guys/scapegoats) for the real powers of this world, who are motivated only by money.

      1. Freemasonry and the like were important instruments of subversion at one time, but they were stepping stones to higher things: open Jewish media, financial, and political hegemony.

      2. Writers like William Guy Carr (Pawns in the Game) and Evola (Men Among the Ruins) have some excuse for holding these views, since they were writing at a time when the Jewish nature of the hegemonic power was less clear. Beginning in the late 1960s/early 1970s, the promulgation of these sorts of ideas by the John Birch Society was part of a deliberate effort to cloak Jewish power by promulgating a plutocratic conspiracy theory.

      3. The idea that money is the prime mover in the world, always trumping race, nationality, and idealism, is just the Bourgeois form of materialism, essentially identical to Marxism in its theory of human nature and society, but opposed in its political recommendations.

      • Posted March 8, 2014 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

        I am not for a second arguing that money motivation trumps everything for the globalist elites. I can’t see anything in my comment above that would lead you to believe that I was? The Anglo-American elite have all the money one could want, their main mission is global government (as I said in the comment). And if you examine these people you’ll realize that they have a spiritual system that isn’t too “traditional” (traditional meaning Christian in the Western context).

        Freemasonic symbolism and ideas make up the spiritual motif for the globalist elites. If you look at the symbols of power in the Western world they’re overwhelmingly Freemasonic and kabbalistic. I highly recommend everyone reading this to examine the website “Vigilant Citizen” (1) to learn more about the symbols and rituals of the globalist elites.

        Like you I once thought that “it’s all the Jews.” It was really the White Rabbit that opened my eyes to the possibility that, at the very least, the Jews may have non-Jewish partners who are equally as treacherous. Now I believe that the Jews are the front, and that the highest power are the Anglo-Aristocracy and their Eastern establishment relatives in the US.

        In relation to White genocide I feel the same as you regarding the guilt of the World Jewry. What I’m saying is that they have non-Jewish partners who are at least equally as guilty. And when the day comes when justice is meted out for the crime of White genocide, I hope you will not be opposed to bringing these non-Jews to justice?


        • Lew
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

          You need to pay more attention to GJs wtitings. He understands it’s not just the Jews. He’s right that the anglo elites are junior partners at this stage. As for VC, I read him too, for thought provoking entertainment. He’s good for learning the elite symbolism, but he is, essentially, the Alex Jones of pop culture. VC can’t be relied on for serious analysis even though he does get a bit of the truth out every now and then. Keep your ey on the ball. The NWO is first and foremost a jew-led project.

          • Sandy
            Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

            For my generation it’s always been a question of whether the Jew was the cat or the cat’s paw but as time goes by and the subservience to Israel and the Wailing Wall (isn’t it actually the foundation of the wall?) becomes clawing I tend to lean towards, “Its the Jews.” And every time I hear someone mutter under their breath – usually directed at a Christian – that he is more Jewish than the Jews I again have to accept the inevitable – its the Jews?

            I still lean to “follow the money”” although the 300, My God and assorted others put the lie to that.

            Isn’t meta politics fun?

          • Posted March 10, 2014 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

            We’ll just have to agree to disagree on who truly heads the NWO. I must state however that if I were trying to build a global government with my group at the top, I wouldn’t be acting how I see the Jews act.

            I do hope we can agree that when the time comes for justice to be meted out against those guilty of White genocide, that along with the Jewish elements, will be parties from the (heavily masonic) Anglo-Aristocracy and American Eastern Establishment?

            • Greg Johnson
              Posted March 10, 2014 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

              Of course

      • Hammerheart
        Posted March 19, 2014 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

        My grandfather was in the JBS & knew WFBJr. I was raised with these beliefs. I knew something was really wrong with that explanation, but until WN came along I couldn’t articulate it. Thanks for the comment, Dr J.

  19. wobbly
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    There are two axes:

    1) Russia vs neocons
    2) Russia vs genuine Eastern Euro nationalists

    It’s easy to have two opinions depending on the context.

  20. Posted March 9, 2014 at 12:38 am | Permalink

    This discussion has shown that while many people are sceptical about aspects of Putin’s Russia, they are not buying the notion that the current Ukrainian ‘revolution’ is necessarily positive. I had a look at what credible examples of European nationalism are saying.

    Golden Dawn is critical of ‘Right Sector’. Indeed, John McCain and prominent Zionists deal with it. This group is simply another civic patriot formation. Golden Dawn’s view was corroborated by a major item in Ha’aretz.

    The Italian parties ‘New Force’ and ‘Social Movement / Tricolour Flame’ have sympathies with Svoboda (Freedom) but counsel it against any belief that joining the EU is to Ukraine’s interest. Svoboda has had links with European nationalist formations in the past and reasonably – a real chance exists that it could come to power.

    In the case of the history of Russian nationalism in recent years: The Russian New Right: Right Wing Ideologies In The Contemporary USSR (1978), set out the main trends of thought at that time. Subsequently, research done by Yanov in respect of Rodina and the (original) Pamyat organisation show that within the Soviet system, the state had evolved. See: The Russian Challenge and the Year 2000 (1987). I suppose if Putin is any sort of heir of the USSR, he inherits that too.

    I enjoyed your discussion; with respect, I think the article contained a number of myths and incomplete analysis. Repeating the silly tale that historical Russia had no real ethnic nationalism and that the country was a inchoate Slavic / Asiatic mess ruled over by a European racial / cultural elite later decapitated by Bolshevism or put to its service – is at worse the foolishness that Hitter used to justify invasion. That is best put aside.

    I hope we eventually get an independent Ukraine, part of a Europe of free peoples and nations.

  21. Posted March 9, 2014 at 4:31 am | Permalink

    *Sigh*. The problem of many Americans and westerners is that they are very naive towards Russia, it’s people and history. You people, unlike Eastern Europeans have absolutely NO CLUE about the Russian mentality.

    This article is very much accurate and shows deep understanding of the issue. One American (and there are VERY few of them) understood the Russian question well:

    “The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them, except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other Asiatic characteristics, the Russian have no regard for human life and is an all out son of bitch, barbarian, and chronic drunk.” G. Patton

    95% of western nationalists simply think (oh the naivete!) that “an ethnic Russian is a white Slavic person”, period. Yes, that’s true, but that’s not that simple. You have to understand that 300 years of Mongol occupation has de facto cracked the Slavic European moral backbone of the Russians. They were white (mentally) but they’ve changed. A ethnic Russian is white, BUT HIS MIND IS NOT. His mentality is Mongol, Asiatic.

    I am a Pole, so I’ll speak for my nation. Between the Russian mentality and the Polish one, for example, there’s is an ENORMOUS difference. A Pole, for example, will never kneel or bow to any rule uncritically, because he is a free European, conscious of his rights. Poles are not sadistically cruel. Poles value human life and individual rights and property. And in our history we have always fought against barbaric bolshevism.

    Russians do not value human life or individual rights. Most of them bow uncritically towards rule. They are sadistic and cruel. They also espouse a very primitive and cruel hierarchy. For a Russian “order” is restored when sombody will get punched in the face. The fact they embraced bolshevism/communism and now eurasianism is just another proof of their Asiaticness.

    One more thing. Most Russian nationalists (except “national” bolsheviks) are critical and against Putin and imperialist Russia and for an ethnic, nationalist Russia. THESE are the people that the ones that should be encouraged and they are the ones that we should cooperate with.

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

      Not everybody here is American or Western, there are indeed many Eastern Europeans or people of Eastern European origin on this website. Also, it is absurd to assume that a Westerner could not understand the Russian mentality; how do you know that some people here don’t have conversations with Russians regularly?

      I have seen so many European peoples accuse each other of having a non-European mentality, whether it’s Germans accusing Poles, British accusing Irish, Romanians accusing Hungarians, Croatians accusing Serbians, or like here, people accusing Russians. This entire issue is due entirely to the fact that people are refusing to understand other ethnic groups. You think of the Russian as Asiatic in character because you dislike them; you are against them and you refuse to give them any credit no matter what.

      If you take for example, the Bolshevik Revolution, the fact is that the Tsar was simply not providing for his people. It is also important to note that actually the majority of Russians did not support the Bolshevik Revolution; the Bolsheviks actually made a coup against a more moderate socialist state and were able to maintain their power because the majority of their followers were recruited from city workers and soldiers, thus giving them Russia’s military backbone. But the majority of average Russians, the peasants and rural peoples, really had no say in the Bolshevik revolution and were eventually simply forced to accept their rule.

  22. Posted March 9, 2014 at 5:03 am | Permalink

    Lets look at some facts about Putin.

    1) Putin is overseeing a resurgence of Orthodox Christianity in Russia.


    Putin is using the Church that he controls to assist him in his plan to multi-culturalise, misceginate and destroy Russia from within.

    The head of the Russian Orthodox and Ukranian Church is an ex KGB agent who infiltrated the church to spy and inform on his fellow priests.

    Want proof ?

    Here it is ;





    Many in the Orthodox hierarchy are also accused of working as KGB informers, a fact that critics say the Church has never fully acknowledged.

    “Essentially, the Orthodox Church is one of the only Soviet institutions that has never been reformed,” said one priest, who declined to be identified for fear that he could be defrocked. That fate already befell another colleague, Gleb Yakunin, in the 1990s when he called on Church leaders with KGB links to repent.

    The so called Orthodox Church is in fact a Trojan Horse, a controlled state institution that refuses to stand in the way for Putins grand imperial project.

    The Eurasian Union.

    Note that the auther and none of the commentators have made a single mention of the Putin project Eurasian Union – a nightmarish, supra-national, multi-cultural imperialist state with free movement of all those within its confines, leading to the eventual death of Ethnic Russian via the same sort of movement of peoples we see in the EU. Unlike the EU though, whose membership of peoples is predominantly WHITE, the dominant populations of the Eurasian Union will be non-white and non-European. Hence when they move to Russia, as they will as it will be the economic heartland of the Union, they will displace the Ethnic Russians themselves.

    The attack on the Ukraine is Putin protecting the Eurasian Union project and his use of EU gas supplies as leverage over Europe.

    Then we take a look at things like Putins anti-fascist street army, Nashi.

    This is an anti-fascist Pro-Putin, state funded organisation set up specifically to target and repress Russian Nationalists. The Russian state provided it with 20 million roubles funding in 2011 alone. Take a look at the EU anti-fascist groups Nashi are linked too.

    Then we take a look at Putins record in office re assisting Russian Nationalism written by Russian Nationalists themselves and those linked too them ;



    Then we take a look at the man who wrote the anti-Russian Nationalism laws that have imprisoned thousands of nationalists in Putins Russia and his support for Putin ;

    Take a look at the organisations this man has set up and what they fight for ;

    Putin is not a Nationalist. He is not an Ethno-Nationalist or even a Russian Patriot.

    His plans for a Eurasian Union will not preserve the Ethnic Russian genetic strata of what remains of Russian society, it will destroy it.

    And finally here is a video of what is happening to Ukranian Nationalists in Crimea.

    Putin supporting mobs waving the Red Flag, wearing Soviet ribbons on their arms, shouting ‘Death To The Fascists’ and who defend statues of Lenin.

    This is the reality.

    This is Putinism.

  23. Richard Edmonds
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    In the Ukraine crisis, two developments of great significance are:

    firstly that a white head of state has come out openly and powerfully in support of his white, Russian compatriots. This is totally unimaginable in the contemporary western world, where racial treason prevails.

    and secondly the toppling in the western half of the Ukraine of those statues of Lenin could well have social and political repercussion way beyond the Ukraine. In Poland, in Hungary, in East Germany and elsewhere in eastern Europe, there are World War Two monuments glorifying the triumph and power of the Soviets which are detested and abhorred by the locals, who experience these monuments of Soviet triumphalism in their towns as a permanent humiliation .

    Whatever the outcome of the present events in the Ukraine, it could lead to a re-evaluation of the Victors’ propaganda-presentation of the Second World War as the Good War (Studs Turkel). Those huge statues to the Soviet hero and Liberator across the whole of eastern Europe (known in East Berlin as the statue of the Unknown Rapist) remain in place,in spite of the acknowledged crimes committed at Katyn, etc., twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union and seventy years after the end of the Second World War, for exactly the same reason that in the West, one may not question that the Second World War (the fight against fascism, the Holocaust, etc.) as the Good War. Essentially all Whites are still in thrall to that unholy alliance between the corrupt Anglo-American Establishment (Roosevelt, Churchill) and the Bolshevik-Communist Joseph Stalin.

    • Dark Henry
      Posted March 10, 2014 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

      Good insight. If this can help to challenge the now mandatory official history of WWII, then it has at least a positive effect.

  24. reiner arischer Tor
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    In general I think regardless of whether we include all or most Russians into the White Race (that will inevitably be arbitrary), they are not the same as Western Europeans, and even quite different from Poles, who had a Rzecspospolita already by early modernity. But also regardless of whether or not they are considered whites, they are still close relatives. Greg Johnson before wrote that we don’t care for our Southwest Asian cousins in part because they are not threatened by extinction. However, Russians (who are way closer to us both genetically and culturally than Southwest Asians) are indeed threatened by extinction. Just look at their demographic profile, especially how it looked before Putin partially reversed the trend. I would find it sad if besides Western European Whites also our closest cousins would go extinct. But our extinction is the way bigger problem, of course.

  25. me
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a very interesting comment about Russia –

    Well, 20 years after the USSR collapse, the picture is mixed at best. Yes – the USSR, especially in the early stages – killed millions and forced other millions into abject poverty, invaded numerous countries and established the totalitarian state.
    However, the late Soviet Union (from the late 50s on) was not the monster American propaganda would like you to believe. It was anti-Jewish and acted as a counterweight to the Jewish-Western elites both internationally and internally (strong unions and – in Europe – leftist/populist parties kept unrestrained vampire capitalism in check). It is not a coincidence that only *after* the collapse of the Soviet Union you see the Juadaized Western elites feeling secure enough to move in for the kill and impose the full force of globalism (economic destruction of White middle classes) and massive immigration on their haples populations.

    The *late* Soviet system abandoned some of its worst excesses and the life in these countries evolved into a relatively benign modus vivendi between its citizens and the power-structures. Economically people were significantly poorer than in the West, but there was much more stability. There was “free” universal healthcare, “free” college tuition, full employment (although many jobs were fictitious), completely secure for-life employment, state-funded housing for families etc. It was a system where everyone had a place – for some a very modest place indeed, but a place nevertheless. There was almost no drugs, extremely low crime rates. Culturally it was a system that did not encourage degeneracy like homosexuality or the family-destroying brand of “feminism” and there was no state sponsored massive immigration – everyone was White. Schools were teaching Eurocentric history, art, culture, classical music and were even instilling a healthy dose of nationalistic pride. Socially it was also somewhat enjoyable – since the people did not have much, they would band together to enjoy and make the best of what they had, enjoy in little things. Neighborhoods were tightly knit, kids were playing together and there was solidarity among people – all things that almost do not exist in the West today, where living is solitary, atomized, focused on consumption. Yes, the repression apparatus was ever vigilant and the most vocal critics of the party were incarcerated or worse. However, privately you could say whatever you wanted in most cases. But – how is communistic repression and snooping different from today when the NSA / FBI is routinely monitoring every single email, forum post and phone call and where vocal critics of the regime often loose their jobs or are incarcerated on trumped-up charges or on a basis of grotesque hate crime laws? A friend of mine summarized the difference between living under Communism and in the West along the lines of: “Yes, we were afraid of the Party and did not have many choices. Now however, I do have many, many choices – I’m can be afraid of loosing my job, of being sick and loosing my health insurance, of not making my next mortgage payment, of my kid picking up drugs, of being labeled a racist, a homophobe, a sexist, etc. etc. etc.”

    Another positive legacy of the Soviet empire is a strip of (still!) completely White Eastern European nations running down the former “Iron Curtain”. Nations with relatively intact racial instincts and strong awareness of the Jewish question. In the European nations supposedly “liberated” by Americans we see rampant multiculturalism, racially brainwashed populations, state-sponsored homosexual agendas, and people gripped by a materialistic hysteria. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the cultural and economic heart of Europe gradually move East in the next 20-30 years, as the countries of Western Europe become unlivable because of massive third world immigration. Frankly, I’m not sure who had it better at the end…

  26. Lew
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    My impression is that most nationalists were pleased when America’s elites suffered a “setback” in Syria. As I recall, nationalists praised Putin for supposedly leading a “defeat” of the West in Syria. In retrospect however, I wonder if Putin’s better play would have been to let the US go forward with a full-blown war on Assad that would have kept the US and its resources bogged down in another middle eastern quagmire, possibly for years, and in one that would have left his borders and the white world largely unaffected, or at least not directly affected.

    After Iraq, America’s elites would have been further discredited at home and abroad. US diplomatic, intelligence, and military resources would have been bogged down in the middle east. And the US would have been committed to fighting a war on Assad, fending off Hezbollah and Iran, and keeping House of Saud and Jews secure all at the same time. In these circumstances, the US might not have not have been able to fight on two fronts at the same time, in both the middle east and Ukraine. Possibly, they would have had to leave Ukraine alone to focus on corraling Assad. In one of his commentaries, I recall Dugin observing that the US at present isn’t prepared for a third world war. And in the final tally, Assad lost his CW anyway, he may yet lose power anyway, and Iran is now negotiating away its nuclear program after having sided with Trayvon Martin in its official media communications. All without the US having to spend much resources.

    So from the standpoint of worldwide WHITE interests, what did the globalist “defeat” in Syria accomplish? From the standpoint of white interests, this “defeat” appears only to have freed the globalists fist to strike much closer to Russia’s borders and in the heart of Europe itself. Wonderful. But hey, Assad and his mostly Muslim supporters aren’t getting bombed, right?

    Nationalists who insist on seeing allies in the Middle East where none exist and sympathizing with mostly biological and cultural aliens who don’t care about us ought to be careful what they wish for from now on. As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather see the globalists tightening their grip anywhere but Europe.

  27. Sandy
    Posted March 10, 2014 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    Further to the Jewish Question which we drift in and out of E. Michael Jones has in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit that prior to the 13th Century the Church was basically unaware of the Jews and their Talmud. In 1236 when Nicholas Donin, an apostate Jew who had become a Christian and a Dominican (some sources say he was a Franciscan)was granted an audience with Pope Gregory IX. Donin called the pope’s attention to the blasphemies in the collection of Hebrew writings known as the Talmud. It was from this point on that the war between Christians and Jews began.

  28. Posted March 10, 2014 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    A poster above posts a comment from the Stormfront site that states “another positive legacy of the Soviet empire is a strip of (still!) completely White Eastern European nations running down the former “Iron Curtain” ”

    Unfortunately, like much of the post from Stormfront itself, this is based simply on a projection of what they want onto Putin & Russia, not what is actually correct.

    If Putin has his way, then such strips of white will soon be submerged beneath a flood of foreign immigrants.

    This is the reality ;


    The Eurasian Economic Union (EAU; Listeni/ˌjʊəreɪʒənˈjuːnjən/) is a proposed economic union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia.[2][3][4] On 18 November 2011, the presidents of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia signed an agreement, setting a target of establishing the Eurasian Union by 2015.[5] The agreement included the roadmap for the future integration and established the Eurasian Commission (modelled on the European Commission) and the Eurasian Economic Space, which started work on 1 January 2012.[5][6] Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have also expressed interest in joining the organization


    According to the 2009 Census, 70% of the population is Muslim. Kazakhstan is the largest land locked nation on earth.


    According to The New York Times, several candidates in Kyrgyzstan’s 2011 presidential election have endorsed the concept. In November 2011 Tajikistan’s government said they were considering membership.

    According to a U.S. State Department release and Pew research group, the population of Tajikistan is 98% Muslim.

    So we can see that the Eurasian Union model will deliver a dynamic exactly as we have see in the European Union, the poor border states of the Union draw in migrants to the wealthier parts of the Union.

    In the case of the Eurasian Union this will mean millions of non Ethnic Russians and Muslims from Kazakhstan & Tajikistan will head to Russia, thereby further accelerating the collapse of the Ethnic Russian population within Russia.

    The Ethnic Russian birth rate is below replacement level.

    According to the 2010 census, ethnic Russian people make up 81% of the total Russian population.


    The non-Ethnic Russian immigrants to Russia are the ones whose population numbers are rising, not Ethnic Russians – a situation we also see mirrored in the European Union in relation to Ethnic Europeans.

    Putins plans for a Eurasian Union are not going to assist either Ethnic Russians or Russia itself.

  29. Greg P.
    Posted March 10, 2014 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    This article is anti-Slavic/Russian and serves to distract and divide us only more so because it speaks some truths. It does us no good to exclude obviously White people from our race because of petty inter-ethnic rivalries. I find English behavior towards Celtic (and pretty much all) people quite disgusting but I do not pretend that they are not White. The fact that this kind of obvious bullshit is still pettled and still has any audience after genetic tests have proven it categorically false is sad.

    Let’s try to keep things in perspective. How many times are we to be distracted and sidetracked into “how White are the ______?” I thought the NANR had pretty much dealt with that question and moved on.

    Putin is not a WN and is not our ally. He is a Russian neocon. But the Russian people still have a lot of good instincts and attitudes that we should do our best to capitalize on.

    The Western Ukrainians should be independent, and we should encourage their independence and nationalism, awareness of White Genocide, the Jewish Problem, and their anti-Communism, as well as the evils of Western “capitalism.” We should do our best to warn and communicate to our Ukrainian brothers that Western elites are just as evil, if not more so than Russian elites. With that in mind, we should remember the fundamentally sociopathic tendencies of politicians. The leaders in Western Ukraine are probably Western, anti-White puppets capitalizing on the situation.

    At all times, we should keep our eye on the prize: we should be concerned with stopping White Genocide. With bringing explicit awareness and opposition to it among our people. Be weary of lending any support or making alliances that do not benefit us and our explicit cause. Do not waste our precious, limited resources on neocons or groups courting us with non-explicit support.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 10, 2014 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      The author is not claiming that all Russians are racially mixed, if that is what you are thinking. He makes this very clear. And he is certainly not anti-Slav, since not all Slavs are Russians. But he does argue that the Russian identity, like today’s American identity or Mexican identity, does not refer to a European people, but to a multiracial and mixed racial population that adheres to a certain creed. From the start, he claims, that Russian identity meant simply: Orthodox and ruled from Moscow. That description encompassed Slavs, Mongoloids, people from the Caucasus, and mixtures of all three. That said, Russian nationalism is no more a friend of white identity than American nationalism or Mexican nationalism, and among White Nationalists, Putin’s fans are as guilty of superficiality and wishful thinking as Ron Paul boosters or Tea Party boosters or Rand Paul boosters.

      • Carpenter
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

        Of course, there are very real issues to be had with what we might call modern Russian nationalism, which is really Russian imperialism. Russian imperialism does incorporate non-European peoples. But the author makes it clear that he is arguing that ethnic Russians are fundamentally mixed-race, even arguing that the Grand Duchy of Muscovy was majority non-European. That’s something I’ve never before heard. I’d be very interested in having the author direct us to more information about Tataro-Mongols in Early Russia. If Tatars and Mongols were as prevalent in Medieval Russia as he states then it should be fairly obvious. I’m interested in learning more about this, but haven’t been able to find much about it specifically.

        Best I’ve come across was: “In a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.” Which means that 15% of noble families had a single ancestor who is claimed to be a Tatar from the 17th century or before. Considering the fact that any Asian genes would have been bred out in 400+ years, it’s not terribly significant.

        As far as I’ve been able to figure, Finno-Ugric peoples are much more likely to be mixed in with Russians. That’s actually an interesting case, because not only Russians and Belorussians have Finno-Ugric ancestors, but also Finns, Estonians and Balts, and probably other Europeans.

        All Russian people that I’ve ever personally known regard themselves as Slavic and White. Any people from Russia I’ve known that appeared non-European were quite upfront with the fact that they have recent (parents or grandparents) Central Asian (Kazakh, Kyrgyz, etc) ancestry from Soviet times. Importantly, other Russians were seemingly very aware that these people were mixed and none would have argued they were solidly Russian, Slavic or White.

        • Emile Durand
          Posted March 12, 2014 at 5:12 am | Permalink

          Actually, the evidence you found is already quite substantial, and it most probably even underestimates the extent of admixture. Most of the people, whose ancestors were of Asiatic origin and who converted to Orthodoxy in the last 2-3 centuries, would not be aware of that by the 17th century. Some of those who would be aware would try to hide it, some successfully some not. That 15% therefore would represent the RESENT converts whose Tatar/Oriental ancestry was quite obvious, and would mostly omit those who converted in the 14-16th centuries. Moreover, you assume that the Asiatic genes would have been bred out in the course of 400+ centuries, but the Russification of Asiatics did not stop in the 17th century. On the contrary, it has continued up to this day – e.g., the forced conversion of Volga Bulgars, the conversion of Turkic peoples in Siberia.

          Another point is that normally the nobility is comprised mostly of the indigenous population. Especially in a mixed-race population the number of non-indigenous or mixed-race individuals is a lot higher among laypeople than among nobility. Therefore, the argument should be if even among the nobility the Asiatic converts comprised 15% (which, I repeat, is most probably already and underrepresentation) the percentage should be much higher among common people.

          Regarding, the documentation of the presence of substantial numbers of Mongols in Muscovy any good work concerning medieval Russia should document it. What I can suggest are the works of Lev Gumilev. I don’t know to what extent they were translated into English, however. It is however a common knowledge that Mongols have always adopted the religion and culture of the local population whom they conquered – e.g., like in China and Persian lands. Thus it should not be surprising that the same process happened in eastern Slavic lands. Now, noone can know about their percentage and I also will not speculate about that. However, one thing is certain that they were in enough numbers to leave their genetic imprint which is strong enough to impel Russian identity and destiny today. I most cases, even the completely white Russians are subscribed to that identity. Like many white Latin Americans regard themselves as Latin Americans first, thus subscribing to a trans-racial identity.

          Another interesting book that depicts the Russian reality to westerners is that of Marquise de Custine “Empire of the Czar: A Journey Through Eternal Russia”, dating from 1839. His descriptions of Russia are trenchant and realistic and portray a more Oriental than a European society. And that is, mind you, in 1839 when Russia was “Europeanized”. If Russia was like as is depicted in that book, just imagine how it should be now after the de-Europeanization in Bolshevik Revolution.

          Finally, as I noticed most commenters refer to Russians whom they personally met to argue for the whiteness of Russians in general. Given that the White Nationalist audience mostly comprises educated people with a BSc and even PhD degrees, the Russian emigrants that they encounter in their environment are the creme de la creme of the Russian society and are not representative of it. Thus it should be no surprise to any race realist that they are white. In the same way, almost all Latin American students or professionals who come to study or work to U.S. or Europe are white. In addition, there was no mass immigration from Russia to the West anyway, and it was mostly the educated class that emigrated. Thus, it is completely misleading to judge about general Russian population from the immigrants that we mostly encounter in the West.

          Again however, I would like to emphasize that all this does not in any way serve to denigrate Russians or claim that they are inferior. My aim is to make it clear that Russians are a different people – i.e., with their own peculiar identity and destiny which are not the same as those of Europeans. This realization in turn will be useful for us if we are to make an alliance with Russia against the common enemy.

          • Emile Durand
            Posted March 12, 2014 at 6:05 am | Permalink

            Sorry. I wrote “…RESENT converts…”. Of course, it should be “…RECENT converts…”.

          • Carpenter
            Posted March 13, 2014 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

            Autosomal DNA testing shows that most ethnic Russians cluster closely along with Germans, Poles, Czechs, etc., with Russians from the far north being pulled towards Finnic groups.



            Had their been such significant Tatar or Mongol admixture you would see a strong pull to Central and East Asian populations. It’s simply not there.

            Admixture tests with Beijing Chinese as the baseline:

            “It’s also worth mentioning that the Komi, Finns and Russians (like the Rus_HGDP sample from Kargopol) show higher levels of this component than the Central Europeans. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean they have Mongolian ancestry. Indeed, another study has shown that the Kargopol Russians carry various Siberian-specific components, rather than the type of East Asian influence which makes up the majority of Mongolian genome-wide genetic structure (2).

            Moreover, the Mongols never raided North Russia or Finland, where in fact these components peak in Europe today. So the most plausible explanation for the relatively high levels of Siberian admixture there is Finno-Ugric or Uralic ancestry. Indeed, the Finns obviously speak a Finno-Ugric language, and so do some North Russian groups, while many others did until recently.”

            That whole site is pertinent because the author investigates Mongolian admixture in ethnic Poles and often mentions Russians as well:

            So, again, I think Finno-Ugric admixture very early on is a much more likely scenario. There’s real proof for that.

            On Mongol admixture in Russia: “Indeed, Derenko et al. conclude that based on the paucity of the “star-cluster haplotype” among ethnic Russians, the Mongol hordes of the Middle Ages didn’t even leave a genetic imprint on European Russia.

            ‘It is known that the Mongol Empire expanded over a considerable part of Eastern Europe by 1248 due to the khan Batu’s conquests. Russian principalities were vassal states of the Mongol Empire until 1480. However, we found no genetic traces of the Mongol sovereignty over Russia (in the form of male lineages of the cluster of Genghis Khan descendants) in the Russian population.'”

            • Émile Durand
              Posted March 14, 2014 at 4:17 am | Permalink

              Of course, in no way do I doubt the conscientiousness of the authors of these findings, however at least one should always be critical about the conclusions of such studies. It is sometimes difficult to find genetic admixture with the current techniques. One glaring example is the recent discovery that Ashkenazi Jews have a significant European (Roman) admixture in the mitochondrial DNA – i.e., in the maternal lineage, contrary to what was thought for a long time.

              The most crucial point is that whatever the amount of Asiatic admixture, even if very miniscule not to be detected by current methods, it definitely left an imprint on the Russian identity, world-view, consciousness and destiny Therefore, I am guided by Russian history, the current state of the Russian society and the mentality of the majority of Russians to reach my conclusions. The Asiatic admixture is provided as a highly likely scenario to explain all these phenomena – i.e., it is used to explain a posteriori what is being observed now, not vice versa. Maybe more sophisticated genetic testing methods will provide deeper and more accurate information in the future. We should nevertheless be guided by knowledge of Russian history and Russian society to be aware that Russians are a different people, with their identity, interests and destiny being different from those of Europeans.

          • reiner arischer Tor
            Posted March 20, 2014 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

            The Asiatic admixture is provided as a highly likely scenario to explain all these phenomena

            An even more likely scenario is differential selection. Western Europeans living under relatively stable conditions in relatively free seafaring societies had different evolutionary pressures than Eastern Europeans. Russian despotism was favored by geography, which in turn created selection pressures – freedom-loving, upright people had less chances to survive (and to have offspring surviving to adulthood) under the despotic conditions of Russia – and that for probably a millennium on end. That might have created enough selection to make them considerably different from Western Europeans. Mind you, early Kievan Rus was probably not much more despotic than Western European states, but as time went on, the successor states (most notably Muscovy) were getting more and more despotic in nature, which strengthened the selection pressures, which in turn led to even more despotic government, and so on until Bolshevism, which was probably the most despotic regime in the history of mankind. (At least in geographical Europe, because North Korea might be even more despotic.)

            • Greg Johnson
              Posted March 20, 2014 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

              Russia is characterized by a mentality of “Asiatic” despotism and cruelty. I doubt that there is a “gene” for these traits, but I think that there is a definite cultural influence from Great Tartary. And ultimately, I am less interested in “whiter than thou” and “white enough?” debates about Russian DNA than in understanding the Russian mentality, which is shared by entirely white Russians, off-white Russians, and the descendants of the Golden Horde.

              • Émile Durand
                Posted March 20, 2014 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

                Just a small remark here. Yes, despotism and cruelty are not determined by a single gene, but like many other complex behavioral traits (e.g. IQ, impulsiveness, conscientiousness etc.) are most likely controlled by many different genes and their interaction with the environment. Therefore a failure to identify a single gene responsible for a behavioral trait does not argue against its heritability.

                In principle, I agree with your comment. As I also argued above along the same lines, the discussions about the heredity of Russians are only of secondary or tertiary importance. It is of course an interesting topic worthy of further investigation but only for the specialists in population genetics and evolutinary biology. What is important for the White Nationalist movement at large is to realize that the mentality and world-view of the majority of Russians are unsurmountably different from those of Europeans, whatever the cause of it.

            • Émile Durand
              Posted March 20, 2014 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

              “…early Kievan Rus was probably not much more despotic than Western European states, but as time went on, the successor states (most notably Muscovy) were getting more and more despotic in nature…”

              As explained in the article, Muscovy cannot be considered a successor of the Kievan Rus. A sane race realist should realize that the despotism of the former and the Western-like nature of the latter should at least partly be attributable to different racial compositions of those two states.

          • reiner arischer Tor
            Posted March 21, 2014 at 7:16 am | Permalink

            Of course Muscovy is a successor state of Kievan Rus, just as multiracial and bilingual Canada is a successor state of the British Empire. Moscow was a city within the Kievan Rus, its original dynasty was that of the rulers of Vladimir-Suzdal, who descended from the grand princes of Kievan Rus. Vladimir-Suzdal was also probably much less despotic (and less centralized) than the later Muscovite State, not to mention the Russian Empire. (Although of course the despotism of 19th or especially early 20th century Russia is already highly questionable. It was absolutistic until 1905, but not really similar to Asiatic despotism, e.g. it had a proud and upright nobility, capital punishment was rarely used, and after 1905 it even had an elected legislative body, as a result of an internal revolution. Most historians think the Czarist system was so unviable because nobody really supported it, by 1913 even the nobility stood for reforms and democratization. Which is a reason why these naive nobles and aristocrats succumbed to the revolution – they even supported the 1917 February revolution and then didn’t want to use force against Bolsheviks either. There are some parallels to the French revolution here.)

            • Émile Durand
              Posted March 21, 2014 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

              Russian Empire became ostensibly less despotic than its predecessors (i.e., Muscovy and the Tsardom of Russia) precisely because of a substantial influx of European settlers, who Europanized the country on the surface. This partial achievement was however completely eliminated by Bolshevik Revolution with the annihilation of that European stratum.

              Regarding Muscovy being a successor of Kievan Rus, here it depends on what one means by “succession”. Racially and culturally Muscovy was not a successor of Kievan Rus. In this respect, the rightful successor of the latter was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

  30. mysmackan
    Posted March 10, 2014 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know where the author has got the information that the early russians were the spawn of slavicized and christianized asiatic nomads, but I doubt it’s veracity. The slavic urheimat was in modern ukraine and belarus. The slavs probally mixed early on with alans and with huns, bulgars and avars. The alans were a iranian speaking people of european race, the huns and avars were probably of mixed mongoloid and europid race, but predominantly mongoloid. But rememver that these mictures probably affected all slavic people in different degrees and was not anything that changed the slavs predominantly european characteristics. When the early russians moved east they came across various eastern baltic and finno-ugric people, whom they assimilated. Both of these groups were predominantly of europid race. Later the on the russians have mixed with various noneuropean people but the russians overwhelmingly slavic character havn’t changed. As far as I see it the russians are a european people, allthough one on the eastern fringe of the european motherland, wich in some ways have shaped them, but not seperated them from their european brethren.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 10, 2014 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      I think you need to re-read the article.

      • mysmackan
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

        I just read the beginning. But I reacted against the description of the russians as racially non-european. They are racially mostly a mix of slavs and finno-ugric people with strong admixtures of other ethnic groups like scythians and tatars.

  31. amspirnational
    Posted March 10, 2014 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    you don’t have to be “pro” or “anti” Russian, just anti-amer/Zio-capitalist Empire.

    • Lew
      Posted March 10, 2014 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

      I find myself feeling sorry for Dugin. You can tell he really loves the Russian people.

  32. R_Moreland
    Posted March 11, 2014 at 3:48 am | Permalink

    Look at the bigger picture:

    One of the official Globalist Establishment party lines is that we are seeing an “end to history;” i.e., the world is entering a new epoch in which the historical processes of the last several millennia are being replaced by a universal world order of capitalism, internationalism, democracy, and etc. One part of this “end” is the abolition of the white race–ideologically insofar as the party line is, “race is just a construct;” and practically, by the flooding of white homelands with non-white populations.

    Putin’s significance is that he is operating according to historical principles. His move into the Crimea is an imperial-nationalist grab, the sort of thing that is direct defiance of the United Nations niceties, Bush I’s “this will not stand” speech, and that most terrible of all goodthinker overlords–“world opinion.”

    Of course, Putin can get away with it because Russia is not an isolated middle eastern state which can be surrounded, bombed into collapse, and then overrun by high-tech Western armed forces (per Gulf Wars I and II). Russia is a vast geopolitical realm with considerable armed forces backing it up. Regardless of the efficiency of the current Russian military, a NATO military move towards direct combat in Ukraine/Crimea would be a plunge into an abyss.

    The outcome of the Crimean annexation can not be predicted at this point. But compare two other crises: the 1956 Anglo-French Suez invasion, and Saddam Hussein’s 1990 seizure of Kuwait. Both led to unified global opposition on the basis of moralistic principles of “international law” (with the White House leading the pack); and both ended in ignominious defeat for the invading powers. Putin, it appears in the Crimea, has “gotten away with it.” And if Putin can get away with it, then does that indicate the globalist ideological monopoly can be shattered?

    As for the various Eurasian theories which Moscow appears to use to guide policies: granted, they may not be white nationalism. But they would be understood by any 19th century European imperialist worth his salt, or by the great geopolitical thinkers of a century ago (Mackinder, etc alia). Bear in mind that the proportion of white people to non-whites in today’s Russia is much higher than the ratio of whites to non-whites in the British or French Empires. The Eurasian power base gives Putin a position with which he can dominate the situation. If nothing else, the Russian government’s control of strategic industries gives a national economic base for the military-diplomatic moves.

    Compare that to the situation with which European and North American governments are faced under globalization. You really can not speak of an American national economy any more. How would the USA do in a military confrontation with a China which threatened to dump its bonds? How would European countries react to Russia cutting its energy shipments? If NATO countries had to mobilize, would the industrial base be there for sustained military operations? More critically, would the political base be there?

    A century ago, Western governments could mobilize their entire citizenry for warfare by using nationalist/patriotic agitprop. But in the 21st century, would a Britain whose population is made up of increasingly “diverse” third worlders get behind its government in a Churchillian manner? Would increasing number of alienated whites refuse to fight for hostile elites? Supposing a NATO country which committed its military to fighting a war against Russia was wracked by massive rioting at home by disgruntled third world immigrants?

    Look at how most NATO countries are unable to commit much more than a brigade or two to the War on Terror. And this against a foe lacking air power or armor. Whatever the globalist-multicultist slogans, the reality is that the elites do not trust their own people enough to fight big or even medium sized wars. The average citizen, despite all the infotainment agitprop, still has some vestige of national/racial consciousness.

    It just may be that the “end to history” and its political formulation in a New World Order are a facade. It just may take a few more military blows to shatter it. If so, then an Alternative Right could make its move, pick up the pieces–and perhaps rescue the Western world.

  33. Russophile
    Posted March 11, 2014 at 5:43 am | Permalink

    The claim that Russian is not an ethnic category and that medieval Russians were mixed race is false. The Russian elite had some Tatar ancestry for sure, but not so to any significant sense the peasants. This for a very simple reason: The Tatars followed the teachings of Genghis and stayed on the steppe, preferring to demand tribute from sedentary peoples rather then settle themselves. And even if they had settled its impossible for nomads with their low population density to replace farmers. This is is all supported by genetic testing of Russians, btw: this shows a very fractionary Asian ancestry, no worse then the Bantu ancestry of the Boers or the native ancestry of the Americans.

    And frankly, the mixture of the elite should not be exaggerated. Google Nikolay Karamzin whom the author mentioned as a non-white: Looks pretty Aryan to me.

    If you want to know what Russians did to non-whites read up about the Circassians or numberless other Muslim tribes driven from their land by Slavic farmer-colonizers. Another example would be the Nogai who once commanded a vast empire, but are now reduced to less then a 100 000 individuals in Dagestan, their lands long since ceased by the Slavic avant garde of the Cossacks and in their wake by other Russians.

    Moreover the author claims that Russian are corrupt and poor because they’re non-Whites, but that the Ukrainians (with a third of their GDP per capita and a worse corruption index) are poor and corrupt…. because of Russia or something. I’m sure that Greg – trained philosopher that he is – can see the shabby logic here.

    Russia – just like the millions of Russian Volkdeutsche that have returned to Germany since the fall of the Wall – have been corrupted by Communism and later shock theraphy, not genetically destroyed by Stalinist purges. Anyone who knows about normal distributions and regression towards the mean understands that even the great slaughter of the Civil War could significantly reduce Russian intelligence.

    In the Bell Curve the authors show that only only a small fraction of high IQ people were enrolled in university in America in the beginning of the last century. In highly stratified Russia with its depressed peasantry this was of course even more true: The majority of the Russian genetic elite could not be killed by the Bolsheviks if only because they were part of the undifferentiated peasant masses.

    The argument that Russians are a mixed-race people whose Aryan elite were destroyed by the Revolution is an ever more unsubstantiated Hitler claim used to justify why swarthy Bavarians
    had the right to reduce blonde and blue-eyed Russians into helotry.

  34. Hairsplitter
    Posted March 11, 2014 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Why do we have to take a position on what’s happening in Ukraine? Why can’t we just call it a Slavic problem and go back to focusing on things that directly impact us? There’s nothing even remotely racial about this conflict or the hollow sabre rattling that Russian and American aristocrats are engaging in.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 11, 2014 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

      Because our race is our nation, and racially aware white men are their brothers’ keepers. Because we live in a world in which white interests here are affected by events half-way around the globe. Because bona fide White Nationalists are involved in the Ukraine crisis, and other bona fide White Nationalists are siding with Putin, of all people, which to me indicates deep intellectual and moral confusions, which need to be aired out, because as a movement, in the Anglophone world at least, we have no political or economic power, and our sole strength is our ability to offer an intellectually consistent and credible alternative to the hegemonic worldview.

    • phil white
      Posted March 12, 2014 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      It’s because the cold warriors at the CIA can’t give up their addiction to playing “The Great Game.”
      Eastern Ukraine probably needs to reunite with the Russians, as well as the Crimea.
      And of course Putin and the RSV or what ever the KGB calls itself these days, don’t want to lose their naval base on the Black Sea.
      As Pat Buchanan pointed out 15 years ago, it makes no sense to pursue the Russian bear into it’s lair after chasing it out of Eastern Europe.
      In Churchill’s phrase “…and in peace good will.”
      H E double L, after the Red Army left Eastern Europe the Clintons (at the behest of CIA/mili-indust complex/rabid Zionist?) decided to take Eastern Europe into NATO, and alliance aimed at Russia, and later we put anti-missile missiles hard up on Russia’s boarders to neutralize their nuclear deterrent. What would you think a former American CIA head like Bush I would have done if the circumstances were reversed?
      What we should have done 15 years ago was tell Putin in private we didn’t want to surround Russia with alliances and neutralize their deterrent, but that we would oppose any Red Army incursions into former Soviet Republics.
      But the young up starts that run the CIA now are all under 65. I doubt they are mature or experienced enough to be allowed even to vote.
      We don’t have a dog in this fight. White Ukrainians and White Russians can sort out their own affairs. We don’t even have a conventional morals stake as long as Putin leaves the Ukrainian speaking portions of “Ukraine” to rule their own territory.
      By now there is no doubt Putin would like to see the U.S. break it’s self apart in a Civil War.
      Maybe the CIA is afraid that American White Nationalist could be ideologically drawn into subversive activity to the benefit of Russia the way the Soviet Union used American Jews?
      What goes on in the beedy little minds at Langley is a mystery wrapped in a riddle shrouded in an enigma.

      • Razvan
        Posted March 14, 2014 at 7:55 am | Permalink

        Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal while Russia and US promised to guarantee the integrity and security of Ukraine. Now the same are talking how Ukraine may be partitioned. Isn’t it the most sinister mockery?
        How many Russians in eastern Ukraine are recent colonists? What if the Russians in London or New York would like partition? Would you recommend it as easily?

  35. Buff Drinklots
    Posted March 11, 2014 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

    Whatever mixing with Steppe nomads may have occurred, the fact remains that genetic testing shows that Russians are as white (or whiter) than other peripheral Europeans.

    This article should have been re-written to de-emphasize the “Russians are Asian Mongrels” theme. Regardless of the author’s intent, that’s the message the article sends. And it’s not really a message we ought to be sending. Genetic testing shows that Russians are about as white as Finns, maybe slightly whiter, maybe a couple percentage points less white.

    The Steppes weren’t exclusively the domain of Mongoloids, many of the Steppe nomads were significantly European in terms of DNA to begin with, so the the effects of mixing would have been less severe, in addition to the factors other posters mentioned above that limited admixture.

    • Bobo
      Posted March 12, 2014 at 8:08 am | Permalink

      “Whatever mixing with Steppe nomads may have occurred, the fact remains that genetic testing shows that Russians are as white (or whiter) than other peripheral Europeans. ”

      You don’t seem to grasp the difference between ethnic slavic russian AND russian federation citizens. This article refers to the former when implying they are not so much european white.

      • Bobo
        Posted March 13, 2014 at 3:24 am | Permalink

        Of course I mean “refers to the latter” (not former) ie. slavic russians are more european white than citizens of the Russian federation as a whole.

  36. Rotbert
    Posted March 12, 2014 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    Completely wrong here, fellow. Putin is not an ideologue, but in terms of character, disposition, personality, ethical perspective, a pure distillation of the ideal Western “paleo-conservative” – if the allegations about atrocity directed personally by Putin are real, substantiate them as a public service (merely being ex-KGB in a chaotic historical period of national change, does not necessarily signify an exclusive, mono-dimensional, single meaning of sheer evilness and negativity…) – if Putin’s speeches are correctly translated, he would seem to be culturally and morally balanced, and I can tell just watching him, he is a very sensitive, hyper-sensitive even, viscerally motivated person; and Putin openly assails the West for caving in to moral nihilism, and I can indeed infer by certain behavioral and facial signs, he is not faking here about his beliefs and is a genuine, impassioned counter-Nihilist and wholesome traditionalist conservative, who naturally would ally with similarly disposed political forces… Putin is “smart” but viscerally “conservative” in a non-destructive manner – unless the manipulative and subversive element offers ground of offense by stealing the steering wheels of zombie-like Western nations, at this point nearly so degenerate as to deserve being governed by these oligarchic wolves… No double-standards for so-called “Aryans”… The Jewish mafia syndicate and associates produce the pornography, and the Semitic organized Mc-Mafia appears to reign…but passivity empowers the lawlessly aggressive…

    The Western Aryan nations VOLUNTARILY and OBLIVIOUSLY consume to the distortion of their rotten trash dumpster souls, in sub-human lust no human race is exempt from, the poison of alien production. Voluntarily and cheerfully. The Nihilistic West Putin attacks, is correctly chastised…and all real “rightists” (and no defender of moral nihilist ideology, opening the way for libertine sewage culturally, can belong to any authentic Right – Nietzsche, etc., are ambiguous for such reasons as authentic, unimpeachable Rightists) shall try to disentangle the highly confusing, partially covertly-engineered, Ukrainian matter right now, knowing Putin is the closest thing in the entire Western civilized sphere to a Spenglerian leader, a “pillar of order”… Compare and contrast – is there any even remote possibility to the contrary? Our “leaders” are universally conformist-spirited co-conspirators, and Putin is a potentially positive presence… Where else is there even a sign of vital life today?

    Putin is a “cardio”-conservative – only enemies of the treasury of axiomatic values of the “actual Right”, should feel threatened – if true Rightists exist in this milieu, know this.

    Putin is, in a small way, what we have lost ourselves (again, in a minimal, Dark Age, reduced form context); the pale, faded image of a human, fully Homo Sapiens, leader, even if pallid and imperfect, – “something instead of nothing” in this age of “Girls Gone Wild” barbarity (Judaic mafia creates, BUT WHO ENABLES THEM BY SUBSIDIZING THE ABUSE OF INNOCENCE? The “Aryan” humankind of today – such “Aryans” are criminally flagitious filth, equally subversive as the elite of predator psychopaths controlling things… No one is guilt-free today, except for exceptional individuals.

    I do know for a fact Putin systematically annihilated the Levantine “Red Mafiya” specializing in abusive sex trafficking and interrelated pornographic enterprises, totally ruthlessly, effectively, and sincerely… Putin phrased the war against Mafia governance conventionally ( – BTW, literally, it was equivalent to guerrilla warfare – many Russian idealists yet exist, esp. in the Russian military and police, believe it or not – Russian “cops” are superior to Israeli gangsters with badges, easily, in terms of battle-field orientation and efficiency – a Russian detective who I knew indirectly, almost as if in martyrdom, sacrificed his life selflessly in battling the darkest parts of mafia tyranny, to be concrete, “snuff” media and Mafiya-related cultist sadistic abuse of innocent, kidnapped persons – ) politically, but it was an “affair of the heart” for Putin as a traditionalist conservative by nature, a wholesome guardian of the (teleological) ethical objective order of values or axes of values without which all of our affirmations are mere cosmic ephemera of meaninglessness; he is a Western preservationist by instinct…

    Probably the main reason the entire (plebeian, philistine) world hates the man so furiously…

    I do not say Putin is a saint, but in all honesty, those are true Rightists and “wise” in contemporary Judaeo-America and Judaeo-American-swamped Western civilization, surely would prefer to be a citizen in a regime directed by Putin, than a caitiff spineless serf, as is the case now, a world of “Aryan” serfs, enslaved under the more-than-feudal lordship of the absolutely irredeemable set of corruptionists (both JEW and GENTILE) effortlessly ruling every single Western-European nation, either cryptocratically/cryptically or overtly, it does not matter…

  37. Hammerheart
    Posted March 19, 2014 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    This is an awesome comment thread & I have this humble comment to add. When I attend the Russian Orthodox liturgy as I sometimes do, I am surrounded by more-or-less exclusively white people. I very seldom am in the presence of so many blue eyes. & I genuinely can’t think of when I see more white babies & children.

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

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    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