Counter-Currents
2,358 words
Czech version here, French version here
This was my opening statement in a debate on the topic “Nationalists in the West should support Ukraine against Russia in the current war.” I argued the affirmative and Dr. E. Michael Jones argued the negative. I wish to thank Fróði Midjord of Guide to Kulchur for hosting this debate.
Nationalists in the West should support Ukraine against Russia in the current war. We need to distinguish two kinds of support: moral support and material support.
The case for moral support is simple.
As a nationalist, I support a world order of sovereign nations. Sovereign nations don’t answer to other nations. That’s what it means to be sovereign. Ideally, sovereign nations answer only to their own people. Sovereign nations have the right to differ with their neighbors. Sovereign nations have the right to choose their own friends and their own enemies. Russia wishes to deny Ukraine the right to align itself with Europe and America by launching a war. For nationalists, that crosses a moral line. From a simple nationalist point of view, Ukraine was operating within her rights as a sovereign nation, and Russia is violating those rights. Thus, nationalists of all nations should support Ukraine over Russia in the current war.
I am not just a nationalist; I am an ethnonationalist. Ethnonationalists think the best nation-states are ethnically homogeneous, because when multiple peoples live in the same country, under the same state, conflicts are bound to ensue. This is true even of peoples that are genetically and culturally very similar, like Ukrainians and Russians. For instance, some Russians under Ukrainian rule claim that they are being oppressed and that they can’t be themselves. Well, if it is bad for Russians to live under Ukrainian rule, it must be equally bad for Ukrainians to live under Russian rule. If Ukrainians are better off ruling themselves in their own homeland, then the Russian invasion of Ukraine is obviously a bad thing. Thus, ethnonationalists should support Ukraine over Russia in the current war.
Like most modern states, present-day Ukraine is not ethnically homogeneous. Although the population is overwhelmingly ethnically Ukrainian, it is divided between Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians. There are also Russians in the east, Hungarians in the west, Poles in the north, Bulgarians and Greeks in the south, and other minority groups.
The official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, and Ukrainians require members of linguistic minority groups to learn Ukrainian in school so they can communicate with their fellow citizens and participate in civic life. Ukraine does not prohibit them from speaking their native tongues. Indeed, such policies are repulsive to Ukrainians, because under the Tsars and Bolsheviks both, the Ukrainian language was repressed by the state, which is why so many Ukrainians now speak Russian as their first language.
Even though Russians are not the only minority in Ukraine, only Russians have demanded that their language have official parity with Ukrainian. To the average Ukrainian, this is outrageous. White Americans would be similarly outraged if entitled minorities were to demand that Spanish or Ebonics have official parity with English in the United States.
It is not unreasonable for citizens of Ukraine to learn the Ukrainian language. It is not oppression to require it. If ethnic Russians feel oppressed, it is only because they have a misplaced sense of entitlement. They resent the fact that their kind doesn’t run Ukraine anymore. The government no longer caters to foreign minorities. (Or at least not the Russian minority. As in Russia and the rest of the white world, Jews are a foreign minority that enjoys immense privileges. They aren’t arrogant enough, however, to demand that Hebrew have parity with Ukrainian.)
Not catering to the Russian sense of entitlement falls far short of any reasonable standard of oppression. And if minorities in Ukraine really feel oppressed, most of them have homelands they can move to where their language is predominant: Russia for the Russians, Hungary for the Hungarians, etc. Most Russians in Ukraine stay because they don’t feel oppressed, because they are attached to where they were born, and because they don’t wish to be ruled by Moscow.
However, unlike Ukraine’s Russian minority, Ukrainians don’t have another homeland they can move to. Ukraine is their only homeland, and now it is under assault by Russia. Thus, as a Western nationalist, I give unqualified moral support to Ukraine in the current war.
There is, however, a danger in declaring moral support for Ukraine. We must mind the difference between moral support and moral hysteria. We cannot let moral support spiral into self-righteous Western virtue-signaling, with a concomitant demonization of Russia and Putin.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
This war has to end someday, the sooner the better. The best way to end it is a negotiated settlement. But it is hard to negotiate if one has to climb off one’s moral high horse to make a deal with someone you have painted as the devil. You may think that Putin is evil, stupid, and dishonorable to start this war. But we have to hope that he is also good, intelligent, and honorable enough to sign a peace treaty.
What about material support? Nationalists in the West should give material support to Ukraine in this conflict, but with some serious qualifications.
First, it is appropriate for Western individuals, organizations, and governments to give money and other forms of support to Ukrainian refugees. This duty falls heaviest on the nations bordering Ukraine: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova. This is required by simple moral reciprocity. Misfortune can befall any nation, and someday the citizens of those countries might be forced to take refuge in Ukraine.
Second, it is appropriate for Western individuals, organizations, and governments to economically boycott and sanction Russia and Russian individuals with strong ties to the Russian regime. Nobody is morally obligated to trade with Russia. Boycotts and sanctions weaken and internally divide the Russian regime, impeding its ability to wage war.
But there are significant qualifications here. It is stupid to boycott Russian artists like Anna Netrebko or Valery Gergiev, or to extort political statements out of them. It is even stupider to “cancel” Tchaikovsky or Dostoevsky. Short of an actual war, it is both criminal and stupid to seize Russian state and individual assets, and such actions actually risk escalating into a war. Similarly, there is an immense moral and practical difference between a boycott and a blockade. For one, a blockade is an act of war.
Third, if Ukraine is to remain a sovereign homeland for the Ukrainian people, it must put up a respectable resistance to the Russian invasion. Thus it is appropriate for the West to give Ukraine military aid: arms, training, and intelligence.
But let’s be careful here. The United States followed the path of economic sanctions and military aid into two world wars. We can’t afford a Third World War, because Russia is a nuclear power, which means it would be the Last World War. Thus, it is appropriate to offer material support for Ukraine, as long as it does not lead to a wider war involving NATO and the United States.
Russia’s rationale for this invasion is fourfold.
First and foremost, Putin does not want Ukraine to join NATO. But since sovereign nations have the right to choose their own friends and enemies, Putin’s invasion to abrogate that right is simply wrong. Now, cynics and “realists” like to say that bullying small countries is just what Great Powers do, and it isn’t prudent to try to stop them, because they are powerful, and we might get hurt. But surely political realism also recognizes that small nations seek allies to protect themselves from big nations, which is why Ukraine wanted to join NATO. If realism counsels tolerance of great powers bullying small countries, then surely it counsels tolerance of small countries seeking allies against great powers. If you recommend we tolerate Russian aggression but not Ukrainian attempts to enter NATO, you’re not a realist. You’re just a shill for Russia.
Russia’s invasion is not an argument against joining NATO. It is only an argument against failing to join NATO, since it would not have been prudent for Putin to attack a NATO country, because he might get hurt. If Putin thought this war would reduce the number of NATO countries on Russia’s borders, he was sorely mistaken. For one, if Russia conquers Ukraine, she will thereby border on four NATO countries: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. Second, because of this war, NATO is much more popular in Europe, and even formerly neutral nations like Sweden and Finland are talking about joining.
Russia also offers three more or less throwaway arguments for this war: that Ukraine is oppressing Russians in the East, that Ukraine is a fake nation, and that Ukraine is full of “Nazis.”
Requiring Russians to learn Ukrainian in school is hardly oppression, nor is saying “no” to the demand for Russian linguistic parity. Since 2014, Ukraine has been fighting against two Russian-backed separatist “people’s republics” in the East: Donetsk and Luhansk. This is hardly oppression either, because the Russians started these conflicts and could switch them off at will. Russia demands that Ukraine recognize its breakaway client states. I think that Ukraine would be better off simply ceding these territories, along with Crimea, which Russia seized in 2014. It might help end the war, and it would leave Ukraine smaller but more ethnically homogeneous.
Ukrainians reject this idea. First, they don’t think giving up territory would bring lasting peace. They believe the Russians would simply invent new pretexts for further incursions into Ukraine. Second, they regard Donetsk and Luhansk as fake Russian ops that do not represent the actual interests or popular will of the Russian minority. Many ethnic Russians are fighting against Russian-backed separatists and Russian invaders alike. Not all ethnic Russians want to be ruled by Moscow. Nevertheless, I think Ukraine may be forced to cede these territories. If it brings even a temporary end to hostilities, it would be worth it.
The charges that Ukraine is a fake nation and that it is full of “Nazis” are far more ominous.
The relationship of Russia to Ukraine is analogous to the relationship between the United States and England. They are distinct nations with many similarities and long stretches of shared history. Just as America is an offshoot of England, Russia is an offshoot of Ukraine. If one studies American history long enough, eventually it becomes English history. One cannot understand Jamestown and Plymouth without looking at English history. One cannot understand religion in America without studying the Reformation in England. One cannot understand American law and government without looking at English law and government. The same is true of Russia and Ukraine. For instance, one can’t understand the origins of Russian Orthodoxy without reading about Grand Duke Vladimir of Kyiv. But both America and Russia evolved into distinct nations over time.
Thus, if Americans were to suddenly declare that “England is a fake country,” that its apparent cultural differences are merely a form of false consciousness, that the English drive on the wrong side of the road merely to spite Americans, and that England should be ruled from Washington DC, it would sound quite insane.
It sounds equally insane when Russians say Ukraine is a fake country. But that did not stop Vladimir Putin from saying it. Nor does it stop millions of Russians from believing it. A good thing about national sovereignty is that it protects us from being ruled by foreigners with crazy ideas. But now Ukrainian sovereignty is under Russian assault.
If Ukrainians are a fake people, then their language, culture, and national self-consciousness — anything that differentiates them from the Russians, really — are simply what Marxists call “false consciousness,” that can be dislodged by “reeducation,” which is a Marxist euphemism for brainwashing and terror. If Ukrainians are a fake people who are “really no different” from Russians, they have no right to a sovereign homeland. Once the Ukrainians are stripped of their homeland by war and their national self-consciousness through reeducation, those who survive will be assimilated into Russia. Ukraine and Ukrainians will simply disappear from the pages of history. This is genocide by any reasonable definition, and genocide is wrong.
When Putin vows to “de-Nazify” Ukraine, he’s not just talking about the Azov Battalion. He’s not just spreading boob bait for Russian octogenarians who think the Second World War is still on. He’s not just trolling the Western media. Under Communism, Russians had a long history of declaring their enemies — indeed, entire peoples — as reactionary, fascist, or Nazi. Putin is using “Nazi” in exactly the same way that Jews use it in the West: as a slur against the nationalism and patriotism of other nations. It is a slur against what Putin calls “cave-man nationalism,” i.e., ethnic nationalism. De-Nazifying Ukraine thus means destroying the national self-consciousness of the Ukrainians, which stands in the way of their conquest and assimilation by Russia. Thus “de-Nazifying” Ukraine is just another euphemism for cultural genocide.
But surely Putin’s Russia is not the same as the Communist Soviet Union. Some things, obviously, have changed. But Putin is a product of the USSR. He was an agent of the KGB. He mourns the downfall of the USSR, defends and conceals Communist crimes, treats Communist propaganda as fact, and employs Communist techniques of propaganda and subversion, many of them directed at the nationalist and populist Right in the West. Ukrainians who remember how Moscow brought them oppression, famine, and terror have every right to fear and prepare for the worst.
In sum, nationalists in the West should offer unqualified moral support for Ukraine as a victim of military aggression and a target of cultural genocide. We should offer qualified material support — economic boycotts and sanctions, and humanitarian and military aid — that stops short of widening the war. Finally, Western nationalists should support a negotiated peace as soon as Russia is convinced that it cannot impose its will through military conquest.
Note: In a separate article, I will present my rebuttal of Dr. Jones’ case for the Russian side, and similar arguments heard on the nationalist Right.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
111 comments
Will the debate with Jones be made available here?
dr j gives a very nuanced point of view. I think we can all agree that we want the fighting between two white nations to end. However, if Mexico or Canada had attempted to join Warsaw Pact back when that was a thing, either nation would have been reduced to rubble. Powerful nations have vital interests.
“Many falsehoods in this article, the biggest one being that the Ukrainian language was suppressed under the Bolsheviks.”
Have you ever heard of Pavel Postyshev? He was a Russian, instrumental in Holodomor. But besides that he also solved some “cultural” issues. He said that using Ukrainian in schools was on par with destroying the schools and allowing the “Petliurite swine” to gain control. Some of the consequences:
Mykola Skrypnyk – Ukraine People’s Commissar for Education – killed himself after being attacked by Postyshev
Mykola Khvylovy – killed himself because his pro-Ukrainian communist friends were arrested.
Mykhailo Yalovy – bullet in the back of the head.
Alexander Shumsky – arrested, killed at Stalin orders. A critic of the national policy in USSR and the exaltation of the Russian people as the senior brother.
If the Ukrainian language was never suppressed, why the Russians had to kill so many Ukrainian communists just because they wanted Ukrainian language in schools?
Of course, this is just a side note. The main event was the Holodomor. Why the villages with Russian majority suffered less than the villages with Ukrainian majority? Why the regions around Donetsk were the hardest hit by depopulation? Because Holodomor was a carefully conceived extermination operation against the Ukrainian people. That’s why.
Russia apologists love to talk about Ukrainization (i.e., the reversal of Tsarist Russification) in the early USSR but simply ignore the fact that Stalin ordered Ukrainization reversed at the end of 1932, whereupon Russian language and literature were mandated in education, in other words, the return of Russification, as under the Tsars. Of course, soon after Ukraine had an actual genocide to deal with, the Holodomor, so the cultural genocide faded into the background.
Dear Greg,
I have no idea how you can be an advocate of “White nationalism”, which lumps together groups as disparate as Basque and Swedish, but at the same time support the petty nationalism of a Southern Russian people.
I don’t lump them together. I support the “petty nationalism” of all European peoples.
But petty nationalism should be subordinated to the larger goal of white nationalism, at least for white nationalists, right? I don’t begrudge any European ethnic group the right to its own sovereign (ethno)nation-state. But such sub-racial nationalisms should only be supported insofar as they are seen as a stepping-stone to a more robust eventual racial nationalism, or otherwise don’t conflict with the imperatives of white preservation. From a WN perspective, it’s more important to preserve our race as such than to ensure the ethnic continuity or autonomy (or “rights”) of the Catalans, the Scots, the Latvians, the Ukrainians, etc. Ethnocultural heritages add ‘spice’ to white civilization, but there are, eg, plenty of good French whites whose ancestry is much less than 100% Gallic or Frankish, good Germans who are not all Gothic or Teutonic, etc. Ethnic customs, languages, etc, can be (and have been) resurrected, but the white race itself is irreplaceable.
I think that in European “brothers’ wars” situations, the responsible WN position (at least as a general maxim) is to advocate peace and casualty minimization, as well as life-saving humanitarian assistance, but absolutely not to provide munitions to either side, which only increases white deaths and infrastructure destruction, and prolongs white suffering. Individual cases must be judged in light of their specific circumstances, and so the general WN maxim might in future instances be justifiably contravened. What about now? I don’t think so. Even if the Ukrainian position is morally justified, and the Russian one unjustified, even if Russia is in the moral and racial wrong (having started this brothers’ war), the WN cause worldwide is not empowered by Ukrainian independence (let alone by Ukraine maintaining its state control over the Donbass, or recovering Crimea), or threatened by Russian victory. Meanwhile, the longer this war drags on (and with Western military aid it could go on for a long time), the more it strengthens the NWO/GloboHomo/Occupationist overclass regime that rules the West, including the US; indeed, from the US perspective, the more it strengthens the horrible Biden Admin and Congressional Democrats (something the usual moronic Congressional GOP predictably doesn’t grasp), as they can use the war as rhetorical cover for the increasing economic hardships that have in fact been caused by Biden policies. Perhaps this will even be enough to mitigate what would otherwise be huge (and vitally necessary – if we ever want to have any chance at halting or substantially reducing immigration, which in turn is a precondition, I believe, to having a shot at a future American ethnostate) midterm Democrat Congressional losses come November.
Exactly.
This is the precise pattern.
-Russia makes promises,as long it has an interest
-Respects them for a decade or two, granting some freedoms
-Russia reverses everything in the most savage manner, once the initial interest was attained
The Ukrainisation was allowed as long the Ukrainians were needed to fight the Whites, the Ukrainian Nationalists and the Expeditionary forces. When everything was secured, Ukrainiation outlived its purposed and had been reversed.. with a vengeance.
USSR was just continuing Tsarist policies. Genocide by any means available: famine, selective drafting, deportations, population replacement, mixed marriages, savage policies against national languages, savage punishments against the civil population. All these were Russian and USSR policies that supersede anything else: Orthodoxy, Capitalism, and Communism.
Extremely interesting are the percentages of conscripts for different Russia-occupied regions. I saw that for the Russo-Japanese War they drafted about 80% of 18 years old in Moldova. The “saint” Nicholas sent them to Manchiuria literally barefoot! They sent them to die not to fight! It would be useful to find out whom and where is Russia drafting for the current war. So we’ll find easily why Putin doesn’t seem to be bothered too much by the mounting losses.
Thank you Mr. Johnson. This is the most truthful, and the most synthetic piece about the current war.
This situation has made me realize what a slimy weasel Putin is. He’s basically a cuckservative kvetching about the holocaust constantly, and uses that as his moral authority to wage war. Extremely blackpilling to realize that Russia is just as bad as America. It’s a lose-lose scenario, because even if Ukraine were to miraculously win, they’d become full globohomo under their regime. The actual nationalists would all be purged by Zelenskyy. We’re surrounded by excrement on all sides.
Putin has also forced his dubious vaccine down Russian arms. But they have been resisting. Thanks to Counter-Currents radio and Whitney Webb for excellent information on Sputnik. Webb’s podcast can be viewed here:
https://rokfin.com/post/71599
https://rokfin.com/post/71599
The Russian take on WWII is very different from the Western. My own sympathies are on the German side, so I’m not a huge fan of Russian WWII triumphalism, but it is important to understand the context.
The Western narrative on WWII is that Hitler gassed six million Jews, we stopped it, but we still need to feel guilty that we let it happen at all and Germany should feel eternal shame. For Russia it is a triumphalist, nationalistic story. After the Soviet Union allied with the Arabs against Israel, they would not even talk about the Jews. They would say that Hitler murdered ‘Soviet citizens.’ If you ask the average vatnik why Hitler was evil, he would say something along the lines of ‘he hated Russia and killed Russians.’ Only a pro-Western liberal would wax poetic about the Jews. For most Russians the meaning of WWII is ‘Russia is strong and right, Russia wins wars! Look at our boys waving that flag on the Reichstag, we are the strongest, we are the best!’
It is stupid and silly, but I would not make too much of it.
Putin is evil. He is not a defender of the West or white Russia. Nor is globohomo/diversity worshipper Zionist Zelensky an Occidentalist, either (as, to his credit, the Jew Eric Zemmour in France seems to be). Both ultimately must fall. Which one wins now, however, is no concern of good white Americans. US STAY OUT OF UKRAINE!
This is a very good response, and the position is indisputably correct, if one accepts the premises outlined at the beginning. I do not.
It seems we have different ideas of ‘nationalism’ and what it means to be a ‘nationalist.’ Here it is presented as a universalist ideology; a sort of liberal internationalism but with ethno-racially homogenous nation-states replacing ‘human rights.’ I believe that you once referred to a ‘classical liberalism among nations.’ (Apologies if I am misremembering.)
I am not necessarily averse to ‘classical liberalism’ in practice—if it is understood as a set of cultural, social and political norms that defined Anglo-Saxon societies before we fell victim to totalitarian Jewish Cultural Marxism and not a universalist ideology based on Locke’s laughable attempts at anthropology or that peculiar collection of fallacies that John Steward Mill tried to pass off as a moral philosophy called ‘utilitarianism.’ But between nations, this makes no sense. Politics is a matter of friends and enemies, and geopolitics is no different. ‘Classical liberalism,’ again taken as a set of norms and not a universalist ideology that entitles every featherless bipod in the universe to supposedly inborn rights, can work when the ingroup is defined on innate, immutable characteristics in a homogenous, high-trust nation where everyone is apart of it. I see no way that it could work between separate nation-states, nor even a reason to want it to. Historically speaking, whites have greatly benefited from violating the ‘sovereign rights’ of the rest of the world. Post-WWII liberal internationalism and decolonisation (which naturally proceeded from the whiteman retreating to his own homeland to the people that he had ruled over following him there) have not been kind to us.
I am not trying to be edgy or a jerk, but I don’t care about the sovereign rights of Amerindians or Aboriginal Australians or black South Africans. You can make the argument that Australians and Americans and Canadians are now their own people and entitled to a homeland, and so we should only give up a portion of our land to create little pigeonhole states for every tribe with a distinct enough dialect to claim nationhood. You still cannot escape putting yourself in a position where you must condemn the creation of America. Taken to its logical conclusion, this universalist nationalism ends up agreeing with the leftists that human history is a awful story of oppression, only for different reasons. Maybe white Americans are entitled to a homeland now, but if you had held these ideas in Jamestown or Plymouth Rock, you would have headed straight back to Europe. This entire thing seems to me like some ethnonationalised version of the NAP.
My own universalist principle is that all is but an expression of a immanent God. Natural history; the story of the emergence of life from lifeless matter and the constant struggle of organisms to preserve and multiply their genes is my creation myth. Everyone of our instincts evolved because it helped us survive, and we are tasked by God with following them. Any ideology that says otherwise, that tells us to ignore our own racial preferences, not to discriminate, to ignore immutable characteristics, to pretend like everyone is the same and repress ourselves and ultimately to perish is Evil. To want one’s race or genotype to survive is the most basic natural instinct there is. Every other instinct evolved out of this basic imperative.
That is not to say that we cannot work with other races or maintain friendly relations when there is mutual benefit. We should not wish ill-will on any but enemies. If the Chinese or Indonesians or Indians or Nigerians wish to develop their own nationalisms on whatever grounds they choose, I wish them the best. If there is something in it for us, we should trade and break-bread with them. But when there is a conflict between whites and nonwhites, I take the white side because it is the white side and I am white, not out of some universal principle of self-determination and the rights of sovereign nations.
Russia and Ukraine are both white nations, so I see no immediate racial reason to favour either Ukrainians or Russians. But in terms of government, Russia is a geopolitically independent white nation (the only one) with Putin, a cuckservative by Russian standards, running the country as a demo-autocracy. He seems more concerned with keeping the ethnic minorities on board with Russia than advancing the ethnic interests of Russians, though the birthrate has dramatically increased under his administration and nearly all of Russia’s major cities outside of the ethnic republics are more ethnically Russian that the country (over 90% as opposed to around 80% for the country as a whole). The main opposition is the Communist Party, which is supported mainly by older, Soviet-nostalgic voters. The third largest party, which wants to lower the voting age to sixteen because of its popularity with young voters, is the nationalist LDPR. Russia is far from an ideal country, but it looks a lot better than the West these days and the overall trajectory is good.
I greatly dislike independence-oriented nationalism. Independence was the worst thing to ever happen to my own country, Canada. We were the first country to make multiculturalism (in the modern sense of inviting the entire world and privileging them over the legacy population, not merely having a multiethnic polity) official policy in a mad quest to give our state a separate identity from Britain and be relevant in the postwar world. The entire world would be far better off if we had become Western Britain instead. Independence-based nationalism has not worked out very well for Ireland either. I believe in geopolitical independence, and that is a very difficult thing for a smaller breakaway state to achieve. My bias is towards larger, racially homogenous states encompassing the entire greater ethnic groups like Great Britain when it was 99% British and included Ireland or a Triune Russia. I am not a fan of Stepan Bandera. But if the Ukraine had elected a rightwing, ethnonationalist, anti-EU, anti-ZOG government after the Maidan and become geopolitically independent of both Russia and the West, I would grit my teeth at the Bandera hero cult and anti-Russian independence celebrations and morally support them anyway in whatever spats they had with the cuckservative government of Russia (I am sure Russia would still want Ukraine back, but regardless of whether security or irredentism is their main motivation, Russia needed the casum belli of NATO membership to justify their invasion). But instead they fell under the domination of the State Department and elected a globohomo Jew as their president.
National liberalism (European sense) works very well. Brătianu political dynasty proved it in Romania. That’s why the Russians killed every male member of the family when they occupied the country. Its free enterprise nationalism was deemed by Russians as the arch enemy because it was working.
National liberalism is the best equilibrium. A national liberal state, at least reasonably homogeneous is stable enough, while open enough to cooperate with other states in order to defend itself and the race.
Your argument with the indigenous tribes is wrong. They do not want their state, they are not really able to keep a state. They just want to extort some more money. Into their own enclave they would rapidly exhaust the natural resources and be once more dependent on the state from which they segregated or face extinction. This is an extortion scheme and has to stop.
European Union works very well in more aspects than not. One of the greatest issues with the European Union was the Russian agent Angela Merkel and her acts of treason on behalf of Putin and Russia (not that Merkel was the only one and one time).
The extra-European migration has to be stopped. Also the intra-European migration has to stop. If the capital needs work force it has to go where the people are not the other way around. People need roots in order to maintain a civilization. Peoples are not a plastic product to use and throw it away. I need my home, my trees, the tombs of my family. So to speak I like the Dutch people because they are Dutch, not because they are mixed with anyone other.
What’s wrong with Canada is not “multiculturalism”. Both the French and the British cultures are great. I am sure that so many smart people can overcome any petty jingoism. The problem is when you start importing incompatible cultures that erode the original ones with no practical gain, biological, ecological, economical, cultural. The problem appeared when European multiculturalism was hijacked and transformed in a globalist multiculturalism, treating everything equally, or indiscriminately without logic, sense, measure, understanding, and leveling everything.
This brand of multiculturalism is wrong because it transforms every people in a cheap plastic fake product easily to be discarded with no second thought about the mother nature.
The national liberal capitalism and democracy is a good enough system to work with. At least compared with the Russian state gangsterism or the Plastic, Uprooted, and Speculative Capitalism/Bolshevism. These both worked really well until recently.
You really don’t want to understand a simple fact. Russia adopted Communism because their hate against any form of freedom or independent thinking. Under a Russian occupation everyone here on CC would be marked for execution. Including you. Or maybe especially you. Read a bit of Russian history and see how fast and brutal they discard anything that outlived its usefulness.
Your “bias is towards larger, racially homogenous states encompassing the entire greater ethnic groups” is due to the British Empire and its merits. Russia as an Empire has no civilizational merit. No merit. One genocide after another, one blunder after another, only to be saved everytime by the declared arch-enemy, the US, time and time again. Today, with all the new technologies you can have only something like the British Commonwealth, EU and US. Anything else might result in the Extinction of men. US is a special case because it is in a full process of ethnogenesis. Loose enough but tight enough in order to not start an internal war and menacing enough for China and Russia.
Your vision about small European states is simply caricatural and dangerous. Dangerous because any European state, (but also many private businesses) is able to make an atomic bomb and also use it if it is pushed enough.
I don’t think there’s any conflict between healthy ingroup preferences and universalistic moral and political principles. You have a problem with universalism because you would prefer to treat more primitive peoples like dirt. I think that’s despicable, but at least you are candid about that.
Respectfully, everywhere ‘universalism’ thrives no ‘healthy ingroup preferences’ are permitted for Whites. So, perhaps, there is nothing in principle that causes ‘universalism’ and ‘healthy ingroup preferences’ to be in conflict, but that is how things are playing out in practice in the West.
Truthfully, though, I’m having a hard time imaging a ‘ingroup preference’ that ‘universalistic moral and political principles’ cannot corrode into nothingness.
Once you start giving members of out-groups the same moral value as members of your in-group you’ve eroded ingroup/outgroup distinctions in a way that in pratice seems to become increasingly unmanageable. The problem with universal principles is that you don’t require members of out-groups to earn their status. It’s just a gift. One which, historically, seems to be received without the slightest shred of gratitude.
The philosophical desire to propose (or assume) eternal, universal ‘truth’ doesn’t work in politics. That’s at least part of what Schmitt was saying, no?
As a person raised in a certain tradition regarding what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, I’m inclined to give ‘the stranger’ the benefit of the doubt, but I think that’s the top of a very slippery slope that has to be managed somehow. And if it’s going to be managed philosophically we may have accept a certain degree of ‘relativism’ in order to craft a workable, pragmatic ‘moral and political’ paradigm to guide our actions a people and, perhaps, as individuals.
This is far afield of the Russia/Ukraine controversy, but philosophy is really only interesting when it’s applied to actual problems.
Hamburger Today, I agree with what you say about the tension between universalism and the vital particularism of the White race.
Counter-Currents sells a good book with a great title: Taking Our Own Side by Michael Polignano.
We should be pro-White and we should take our own side.
As a person raised in a certain tradition regarding what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, I’m inclined to give ‘the stranger’ the benefit of the doubt, but I think that’s the top of a very slippery slope that has to be managed somehow.
If individuals can balance self-assertion with the legitimate interests of other individuals, why can nations not do likewise?
The slope is not really that slippery. It just appears so because media control prevents candid debate that allows that balance to be found.
This is an important issue, because White people will never sign up for anything that they believe requires them to give up their moral absolutes.
If individuals can balance self-assertion with the legitimate interests of other individuals, why can nations not do likewise?
I don’t know. It just hasn’t happened, which suggests that it’s easier to ask the question than to answer it.
The slope is not really that slippery.
I think that it is and I don’t think the problem can be solved by an application of one or another ‘universal principle’.
It just appears so because media control prevents candid debate that allows that balance to be found.
This is possibly true. But who, then, should be in the ‘debate’? And wouldn’t a ‘discussion’ be a better approach? Debates assume that one side has to win and the other sides have to lose. They’re not a very good way of drawing out creative solutions to anything.
This is an important issue, because White people will never sign up for anything that they believe requires them to give up their moral absolutes.
Really? Except for the loopy Puritanical streak in the American bioculture, most of America most of the time is dedicated to not giving offense, minding its own business and chillin’.
The media makes White people look like a bunch of stiff-necked spittle-spewing rage-heads. Now, there’s definitely some of that (and a place for it as well), but most White folks I know are pretty easy-going and just looking to make the most of things.
If it weren’t for Jews and sullen Negros, most of America most of the time would actually be Mayberry, NC as seen in The Andy Griffith Show.
This is possibly true. But who, then, should be in the ‘debate’? And wouldn’t a ‘discussion’ be a better approach? Debates assume that one side has to win and the other sides have to lose. They’re not a very good way of drawing out creative solutions to anything.
I’m reminded of the usual line parents give their children when they’re having it out: “We’re not arguing. We’re having a discussion.” Anyway, it doesn’t really matter what you call it. The point is that the silencing of one side is likely going to lead to excess. And yes, sometimes one side has to lose. Sometimes Whites just have to say no, end of … discussion.
Minority demands have become unhinged and increasingly outrageous, to the point that the only way to defend them is to simply deny that the White race exists so as to excuse our destruction. After all, it’s not genocide if you’re just grinding a social construct into the dust.
The media makes White people look like a bunch of stiff-necked spittle-spewing rage-heads. Now, there’s definitely some of that (and a place for it as well), but most White folks I know are pretty easy-going and just looking to make the most of things.
Maybe, but I’m not sure those are the White people who matter. Or maybe they are. I don’t know. I have no wish to dictate. All I can do is report on my own experience. Overcoming the guilt and shame surrounding my natural feelings of White identity and solidarity was hard enough without piling on the moral nihilism that the hostile media go out of their way to impute to White advocates.
You should learn how they treated each other. Or go visit a reservation and see they are still treating each other.
We are not the victors because we came in and pitilessly stomped innocent nobles savages into the dirt. We are the victors because right makes might. We build societies that always strove to uphold ideals of justice, and that made us strong, cohesive and high-trust. Our societies prospered and developed. They preferred inhuman cruelty to ideas of right and justice, and they deservedly languished in ignoble savagery until the whiteman came, taught them the error of their ways with his firestick and civilised warfare, and sent them packing westwards. And without once stooping to the barbarous cruelty of the beasts we routed.
In America and Australia and all the British settler colonies it was the same. European justice, progress, piety and civilisation vanquished native sadism, backwardness, superstition and barbarism. And everywhere we left without settling, we left better than we had found it.
I can feel nothing but pride in the right and might that my people are capable of. And I feel a sense of mourning and rage to see them now submit to Evil and apologise for ever daring to show the savage justice.
We have nothing to apologise for and fighting for our existence is demanded by our own healthy survival instincts imbued in us by Nature, and ultimately God.
I’m not impressed by primitive peoples. I am not apologizing for settling these lands. But I am not arrogant enough to think that they would or should have welcomed us to this continent. Whether through losing wars or signing treaties or both, they lost this continent.
But they are humans with rights, so we can’t just exterminate them. Nor is the cultural genocide of assimilation ethical. We don’t want to assimilate them anyway but remain ourselves. If they don’t share the same philosophy, that’s their problem. We will simply force them to. Because that is how we remain ourselves. The best solution for these tribes is simply to give them their reservations and casinos and be done with them.
As for the political correctness and white guilt racket: I don’t go in for that either. But let’s be clear: it is mostly our fellow and (((fellow))) whites who are behind that. Once whites have regained our racial self-confidence, we will put a stop to all disgusting exhibitionism, abasement, pandering, and greed.
I think you makes some good points that jibe with my own thinking. To me it’s not a question of rejecting or denying the ‘personhood’ of the Other, but in denying that their Otherness qualifies them for better treatment than I would offer a co-nationalist. A ‘liberalism’ that understands itself as a particular expression of a particular people (Whites) at a particular time (between autocracy and whatever comes next) is likely to be a more benign and sensible liberalism. I think a certain degree of tolerance of differences – eccentricities really – between Whites is essential if we are live in the same ‘society’ as one people.
“This is a very good response, and the position is indisputably correct, if one accepts the premises outlined at the beginning. I do not.”
Nor do I.
We should ask of everything, “is this good for Whites?”
We should ask this of nationalism too.
We should not say, “I am a nationalist, and this conforms to nationalism, so it is correct.” We should ask in every case, even if something clearly is nationalist, “is it good for Whites?”
From a pro-White point of view, nationalism has a balance sheet. It has had successes but also costs. Nationalism’s record is not so spotless that we should say, “whatever is good for the nationalism of any people is always best for Whites.”
Yes. I’d prefer to be a ‘Is it good for Whites?’ philistine than enlightened and place anything ahead of the physical reality of Whites and Whiteness.
Radio Yerevan was asked: Is it wrong to kill white babies?
Radio Yerevan answered: In principle, yes. Makes exception when the missile is Russian, in which case it is “let’s not be absolutists about that”.
Unfortunately is all too real.
Yes, GJ’s stance is principled. Scarcely any realpolitik. Our enemies don’t think this way; almost all in our movement do.
Dr. Johnson, this was very interesting.
Would you be willing to debate Mike Enoch or Eric Striker on this issue?
Thanks
As a Russophile, I would rather have someone intelligent and articulate and not a communist representing my position in a debate with Greg Johnson.
Enoch, yes.
I think that you would tear Enoch apart. He is intelligent and even articulate at times, unlike the other one mentioned, but often poorly informed and he relies far too much explanations of things given to him by others instead of his own research.
Can I add my request that this debate be made available to listen to online. Time zone differences and work/family commitments mean that listening live is going to be impossible for many of us.
I should also express my increased respect for Dr Jones. There was a lot of very personal and downright unpleasant criticism of him after his debate with Jared Taylor. I found some of Dr Jones’ words on that occasion to be unworthy of him and on any view he had a bad day. But we advance our position by engaging with those who disagree with us in good faith in a reasoned and courteous way, and I have the greatest respect for people willing to engage with us in the same manner.
It would have been easy for Dr Jones to stop engaging with us. He hasn’t and he deserves respect for that.
Johnson is anti-nationalist and thus self-contradictory with his ‘sovereignty’ idea, that a nation’s current borders have some kind of absolute moral stature … Johnson is in fact ‘anti-nationalist’ in denigrating secession rights, not facing up to how a nation’s borders may be perverse and immoral … so he doesn’t see that Russia and Ukraine both are evil here
Any true nationalist must support secession rights. This is true not only nationalistically and morally, but even in terms of international law such as the United Nations charter, which directly refers to the “self-determination of peoples’. A nation that oppresses a minority region – as Ukraine did towards its Russians – loses the moral right to control that minority. An ethnic minority native to an area, has every ‘nationalist’ right to secede, both morally and under international law.
Russians and Ukrainians are both wrong in this war. Ukrainians provoked it by bombing and killing 13,000 Russians over 8 years, who had a right to secede. Putin should have defended his Russians 8 years ago. But now, Putin exceeded his rights to protect Russians, by invading all Ukraine, using the same dumb excuse Hitler used to roll into Prague in March 1939, ‘it could be used as a base against us’. The moral thing to do, is not to join in, between two parties who are both oppressors.
This UN ‘self-determination’ principle was directly used by Nato and the West in supporting the Muslims of Kosovo to split from Serbia … in that case the West supported secession, an example much cited by Russia. Notably, Russia’s talk of self-determination upsets their Chinese friends, nervous about independence for Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan … and it is also hypocritical of Russians given what they did to Chechnya and Dagestan, populated by Muslims who wanted to secede from Russia, and who will likely do so after Putin is gone. Two decades ago, Putin finished an ugly war killing maybe 100,000 Muslims, so Russia could hold on to Muslim-region gas and oil revenues. It’s a sad world.
Care to provide any information regarding the supposed 13 000 Russian civilians killed by Ukrainians since 2014?
Why Putin talked about denazification of Ukraine, talked about some secret laboratories in Ukraine, but he said nothing about 13 000 Russians killed by Ukrainians?
Why Russia bombarded so savagely Mariupol, supposedly a city with Russian majority?
Why Russia tries to occupy lands with Ukrainian majority?
Do you believe it is moral to genocide a people and after that to say that their lands are yours? And that people is an artificial people? What do you think it is going to happen?
You decry the war, but your attitude is the most conducive to war. Putin should have respected the Budapest Memorandum. He committed a colossal act of stupidity to remember to the entire world who the Russians really are.
If we are being asked to believe that the only innocent victims of the Russian ops in Donestk and Luhansk were Russians, I think we can safely conclude that we are dealing with a Russia shill.
I support secession as a way of separating warring tribes. I also support moving populations. The best solution for the troubles in Donetsk and Luhansk is not clear to me.
Well done, boss. It is a shame our State Department is run by neo-Bolshevik goblins like Mrs. Victoria Kagan rather than conservatives like George Kennan or white identitarians like ourselves. With responsible diplomacy, surely we could’ve used our power to prevent this disaster for the Ukrainian people.
Are you hinting at George Keenan’s piece “A Fateful Error” from the 1997?
That was a highly immoral piece for a former Ambassador in USSR and Yugoslavia, a man who should have known better. From containment, and “USSR an unfit ally” to this hit piece is a really long distance.
You can not bomb Europe to rubble, give half of it to the Russians in the 40’s, allow the Eastern European genocide in the 50’s, save the Russians empty stomachs countless times during the entire 20th bolshevik century, and after that come up and cry sour tears about what would poor little Russia do with its hurt feelings. With no regard for the “feelings” (read existence) of peoples of Eastern Europe. In fact more white people in Eastern Europe than in Russia.
It is excusable that he was an old man in his nineties when he wrote that catastrophe of article. But he was pretending that he doesn’t understand what has happened in Yugoslavia, which was Russia’s role in the war, and why every Eastern European countries was so desperate to be admitted in NATO.
The old diplomat was justifying in many words the “pump and dump” scheme. Without thinking that he was pushing the entire Eastern Europe toward China and to hate the US. After so much cold war propaganda, and how communism was bad, suddenly everything was handy dandy, turning a blind eye to the massacres done by Russians or instigated by Russians.
Ridiculous, immoral, and insanely hypocritical!
And most of all stupid, because an united white race rules the world. Otherwise we are all easy prey to China, or to some crazy midget with gangsta’ manners.
Buchanan also recognized the folly of NATO’s eastward expansion. For a lengthy excerpt of the second chapter of his 1999 book, see https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/buchanan-republic.html
The US should have either (1) integrated Russia into the West and reformed NATO into a pan-European defense pact, stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok, or (2) dissolved NATO and encouraged Europe to take charge of its own defense, with Germany & France at the helm.
Instead, we followed the Wolfowitz Doctrine: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival [to the United States], either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere. … This is a dominant consideration underlying [a] regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
Had we forged friendly relations with Russia, we would today have China encircled. Now we are facing, instead, a new bipolar division of the world with the bulk of resources and productive power in the hands of our adversaries. We have only financial power, and not for long, as we have separated it from its real basis.
We must now hope for the dissolution of NATO. For if Europe were militarily independent of the US, it would necessarily pull Russia “westward” away from its embrace of China. Europe would have its own gravity.
Please do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that Europe in any way ally with Russia. It must defend itself against Russia, which means having enough capability to deter future Russian aggression.
However, in the bipolar order that the US appears to be pushing for–on a generous interpretation (my other interpretation is far more paranoid)–there is nothing to stand between Western and Eastern blocks. But if Europe breaks away from US, then Russia will be able to break away from China. And this will mean that Russia will stand between China and Europe, much as the Byzantine Empire stood between Europe and the Islamic world.
A mighty civilization that sits between Europe and China will necessarily serve as its de facto protector, which is not to say that Europe should not be armed against it.
“Had we forged friendly relations with Russia, we would today have China encircled.”
Has been tried, never worked. Russia is actively against Europe. Russia never wanted to join the West. Otherwise it would have stopped invading other countries, stopped fomenting wars in its vicinity, stopped spying, hostile propaganda, and the economic blackmail.
This Russia integration to the West is wishful thinking. You can’t wipe out with a sponge Russia’s traditions and history. And they both are anti-European and genocidal. Russians want to conquer and humiliate Europe not join the club.
Years ago I was following Patrick Buchanan too. Until he proved that he’s not understanding what is really happening.
Russia wanted to join NATO and was rebuffed.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/
And these wars of aggression that you speak of, are you referring to Russo-Georgian war of 2008? If so, you might want to look into the role of Israel.
-USSR implication in Romanian Revolution, followed by many not so covered operations designed to spark a civil war and an inter-ethnic war
-Moldova war, sparked by Russia and Ukraine in order to prevent the reunification with Romania
-Yugoslavia war, (please don’t tell me that Primakov and Eltsin had nothing to do with it – because it’s a long good story here)
-the long lists of wars and interventions in Central Asia, North and South Caucasus (you can have a partial view from the “Post Soviet Conflicts” Wikipedia page.
Georgian War in 2008 and Israel involvement is a red herring, if you don’t mind. It all started in 1990 with the Russian colonists making troubles in every country that managed to regain its freedom from Russian occupation. Including Georgia practically at war since Jan 5 1991 until 1998. In 2008 everything what the western press had to say about Georgia was that it was the country of Stalin, which was a shame.
Russian joining NATO in 1990 is another red herring. It is worse than that.
-Russia would join NATO only to subvert it, to steal military information, and in order to invade Europe
-Russia was part on so many cold, and warm wars, frozen conflicts, territorial disputes that it would have brake any rule of the North Atlantic treaty to allow Russia to join in
-The epidemic corruption and gangsterism of Russia made this idea a cynical joke
It was as ridiculous in 1990 as it was in 1954 when the psychopath Molotov proposed it. He was afraid of the revival of the German militarism. What to say here? The man was afraid.
Okay, you have convinced me.
Europe has permanent security concerns vis-a-vis Russia and points further east and also, of course. the Mulsim world and Africa.
Europe, therefore, needs a permanent collective security agreement whereby all sovereign states come to the aid of each other if they are attacked.
Since the US is also a security threat to Europe, the US should not be part of it. Call it ETO: the European Treaty Organization.
The point remains, however, that such an organization would be a treaty organization of sovereign European states, not a “European Superstate.”
Pretty much yes.
-Only that US has to regain its European roots
-A global, friendly and mutual supporting network of white national states is also necessary; with the current ethnic and racial chaos it will be essential
No matter how far a country is, the Moscow arm is always long enough. Stalin proved it when he managed to steal the Spanish gold in September 1936 (560 tones of gold). It had to skin some people alive for two weeks but it worked.
Although I dont share them, I can appreciate your sentiment toward the Russians. Now you can understand the rest of the World’s feelings toward the U.S.
Best wishes.
Best wishes to you too. And do not let others play you for their own ends.
I recently read Kojeve’s long missive of August 1945, wherein he proposes the division of Europe into three “empires,” the Slavo-Soviet empire, the Germano-Anglo-American empire, and the Latin Empire, which was to consist of France, Italy and Spain. Kojeve wrote this note before the post-war collapse of colonial empires and many decades before the rise of China, so this needs to be borne in mind.
Although I certainly do not agree with Kojeve’s historical teleology culminating in a universal state, he is quite effective in showing that the nation-state (and ipso facto, ethnonationalism) is no longer workable as a *military* reality, and that this has spiritual and political consequences.
As an American mongrel, the starting point of my own thinking is not a concrete attachment to any one ethnic group or supposed nation. Rather, my primary attachment is to the shared civilization and racial basis of Western Europe, and this is what I want to safeguard for posterity. The question is, What political form is best suited to achieving this objective under current historical conditions?
If Europe is currently organized into nation-states, this is only because it exists under American suzerainty. They are not true nation-states because they are not truly autonomous, and they are not autonomous because they lack the military might to defend themselves. The European nation-states exist only as a fiction, and this has had deadly consequences of the spiritual condition of Europe. This is why Europe lay supine before extra-European migrant-invaders.
I predict that the Ukrainian crisis will lead to the dissolution of NATO and the collapse of the euro. Europe will then be reorganized either into (1) a unified state under German rule–militarily, economically, politically–as a kind of Holy Roman Empire redux, or (2) multiple blocs or “mini empires” that will work closely together to defend Europe as whole, a Germano-British bloc, a Mediterranean bloc including Greece (despite Orthodox religion), and Intermarium. There will be no return to ethnonationalism because such ethnostates lack military truth.
As for the USA, it will undergo the reverse process, and split into smaller successor states. Hopefully one of these will be a White ethnostate. But the term ethnostate is inaccurate, as it would be poly-European in its ethnic character, and control enough territory and resources as to be truly autonomous.
I will now cite passages from Kojeve that I consider pertinent or of interest, but you may find the entire piece here ===
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/kojeve2.htm
On the political inadequacy of Hitler’s Germany
Hitler expressed the essence and the motive of his political thought very well by putting himself at the head of a movement which calls itself “ national-socialism,” and which consciously contrasts itself with Soviet “imperial-socialism” as much as with Anglo-Saxon “ imperial-capitalism.” Generally, the Third Reich was undoubtedly a national State, in the particular and precise sense of the term. This is a State which, on the one hand, strove to realize all national political possibilities, and which, on the other hand, wanted to use only the power of the German nation, by consciously establishing, qua State, the (ethnic) limits of the latter. Well, this “ideal” nation-State lost its crucial political war.
To explain the total military – and thus political – defeat of this nation-State, one cannot raise the limited size of its national base, as it is tempting to do when one tries to explain the crushing defeat of the Polish, Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian, Yugoslavian, and Greek national States. Nor can one speak of military incompetence, as is sometimes done to “explain” the fate of fascist Italy (which was also eminently “national”). Finally, there can also be no question of “causes” often raised in discussions of the collapse of France: disorder, lack of foresight, domestic political unrest, etc. The German national State pressed 80 million nationals into service, whose military and civic (if not moral) qualities revealed themselves to be above all praise. Nonetheless, the superhuman political and military effort of the Nation served only to delay an outcome which can truly be called “fatal.”
And it is certainly the eminently and consciously national character of the German State which is the cause of this “fate.” For to be able to sustain a modern war, the Third Reich had to occupy and exploit non-German countries and import more than 10 million foreign workers. But a nation-State cannot assimilate non-nationals, and it must treat them politically as slaves . Thus Hitler’s “nationalist” ideology would have been enough by itself to ruin the imperial project of the “New Europe,” without which Germany could not, however, win the war. It can therefore be said that Germany lost this war because she wanted to win it as a nation-State. For even a nation of 80 million politically “perfect” citizens is unable to sustain the effort of a modern war and thus of ensuring the political existence of its State. And the German example proves clearly that nowadays, a nation, no matter which one, which persists in maintaining its national political exclusivity must sooner or later cease to exist politically: either through a peaceful process or as a result of a military defeat . By dispelling the illusions of the 1914-18 war, the current war, conducted by Empires, signaled the last act of the great tragedy which national States have performed for five centuries.
How liberalism is non-political and therefore suicidal –>>
“Bourgeois” Liberalism proclaimed more or less publicly the end of the State as such, which is to say [the end] of the strictly political existence of Nations. By not conceiving of the State outside of the national setting, and by observing at the same time – more or less consciously – that the nation-State was no longer politically viable, Liberalism proposed to abolish it voluntarily. The essentially political – i.e., in the final analysis martial – entity, which is the State in the strict sense, had to be replaced by a simple economic and social, not to say a police Administration, put at the disposal and at the service of “Society” which had moreover been conceived of as an aggregate of individuals; the individual was supposed to embody and reveal, in his own isolation, the supreme human value. Thus conceived, the “statist” liberal administration had to be fundamentally peaceful and pacifist. Put differently, it did not have, strictly speaking, any “will to power,” and consequently had no effective need, nor adequate desire, for this “independence” or political autonomy which characterizes the very essence of the true State.
On the prospect of decline absent a suitable political form –>>
Historical experience has shown that, once separated from its political trappings, civilization itself undergoes profound transformations, sterilizes itself and disintegrates little by little, and also soon loses the specific gravity it had in the world as the civilization of a State. Anybody who would like to safeguard the existence and the influence of the traditional Latino-Catholic civilization, which is also that of France (and to which France has, moreover, contributed much more than all other Latin Nations combined), must thus want to provide it with a political base adequate to the given historical conditions. And anybody who were to do this would serve not only the cultural interests of his country, but also those of all of humanity. For the Anglo-Saxons, the Germans, and the Slavs do not possess, and will never possess, what the Latins, with the French at their head, have given and will continue to give to the civilized world.
On the fate of France if she is not reborn as the head of an empire –>>
Objective analysis of the historical situation shows clearly that if France remains politically isolated, if she insists on wanting to live as an exclusive Nation, she will necessarily sooner or later have to stop existing as a State in the strict sense and as an autonomous political reality. She will end, fatally, by being politically absorbed by the Anglo-Saxon Empire, which stands to become a Germano-Anglo-Saxon Empire. But given the differences of “race,” of culture, of language, and of religion, of traditions, and “lifestyle,” there can be no question of a true fusion between this Empire and France. The latter will always remain a more or less foreign body in it, and, consequently, will always play but a peripheral and thus retiring role in it: the role of a satellite, of a “second” which – in politics – is neither always nor necessarily “brilliant.” In a word, in this hypothesis France ceases to be an end in itself and lowers herself to the level of a simple political means.
But it is not only France’s politically specific gravity which will become negligible if she lets herself be absorbed by the Anglo-Saxon Empire. Her economy, too, will play only an entirely secondary role in it. France’s economic functioning, too, and, consequently, her very social structure will have to transform themselves bit by bit in order to comply with and adapt themselves to the models and the requirements which, coming from outside, will often be in flagrant conflict with the traditions and the aspirations which, while fundamentally Catholic and Latin, are not for all that less authentically French. Finally, no longer sustained either by independent economic activity or autonomous political reality, French civilization itself will not count for much at the heart of the Anglo-Saxon world, and, consequently, of the world in general. Far from shining outward, France will be internally subject to the influence of the Anglo-Saxon civilization – fundamentally Protestant in its modern form, and basically “Germanic” – which will be sustained by the crushing prestige of the political force and the economic power of the Anglo-American bloc. The first vestiges of this influence can perhaps be perceived in the physical and moral aspect of French youth raised on films and novels from across the English Channel and from overseas. It can thus be supposed that, in renouncing autonomous political existence, that is the State, France will lose not only “face” but also her own face.
The preliminary signs of this state of things are already making themselves felt. Thus the attitude of certain foreign countries and the reactions of some of France’s guests – military and civilian – perhaps give a foretaste, if not of the contempt, at least of the indifference of tomorrow’s world toward this country and her civilization. But what is infinitely worse is that the disastrous consequences of depoliticization are already taking hold at the very heart of the French nation. For there is no doubt that the latter’s decline, which nobody disputes and on which it is pointless – and distressing – to dwell, goes hand in hand with the country’s political diminution, which, for its part, reveals or explains itself with the loss of a real, enlightened, and effective political will. For it is certainly difficult to deny, or even not to see, that the France of yesteryear, of yesterday – and even of today – does not have, or no longer has, a clear and conscious political idea. Not only in fact, but also in his own consciousness, the modern Frenchman lives as a “bourgeois” and not as a “citizen.” He acts and thinks as an “individualist” in that sense in which “private,” “particular” interests are for him the supreme or only values. And he is “liberal” or “libertarian” and “pacifist” above all because he no longer wants to be subjected to the weight and the demands of the “universal” reality of the State and the means it uses to assert and preserve itself.
But it is certainly evident that this depoliticization of France and the French manifests itself not only through external as well as internal political decline in the strict sense, but also through a general diminution, as much economic and social as cultural and moral. It can thus already be seen that by ceasing to be a big and strong State animated by an effective – concrete, positive, and definite – political will, France ceases to be the vanguard country she has always been until now and becomes a backward country in almost all fields.
On the death of France as a real nation-state –>>
In the depths of its soul, the country understands the inadequacy of this ideal, of the political anachronism of the strictly “national” idea. This feeling has admittedly not yet reached the level of a clear and distinct idea: The country cannot, and still does not want to, express it openly. Moreover, for the very reason of the unparalleled brilliance of its national past, it is particularly difficult for France to recognize clearly and to accept frankly the fact of the end of the “national” period of History and to understand all of its consequences. It is hard for a country which created, out of nothing, the ideological framework of nationalism and which exported it to the whole world to recognize that all that remains of it now is a document to be filed in the historical archives and to join to a new “imperial” ideology, which has, moreover, scarcely been outlined and which it would be necessary to clarify and formulate to raise to the level of logical coherence and clarity of “national” ideology. And yet, the new political truth is penetrating little by little into the collective French consciousness. It appears there negatively, first of all, in the fact that the general will no longer allows itself to be galvanized by the ideal of the Nation. The recollections of the indivisible Republic’s potency ring hollow and false, and the call to France’s no longer finds the echo it still triggered at the time of the 1914-18 war.
It could almost be said that for the “average Frenchman” the current war entailed, from the beginning, only two political possibilities: France’s politico-economic subordination, either to Germany or to England. And in fact, at least at times, this war provoked “passions” in France only insofar as it had to do with the conflict between these two “collaborationist” tendencies – a conflict in which the traditional, irreducible, and disastrous opposition between the Right and the Left was crystallized. But it is perhaps precisely because of this that the French soldier did not give his all in 1940 and that, after the Liberation, the Resistance movement evokes only distantly the mass uprisings of old. If the average Frenchman obviously refuses to die, and even to discipline himself and to “restrain” himself, for the sake of France, it is perhaps simply because he is more or less consciously aware that “the France” of national and nationalist tradition is an ideal which, politically, is no longer viable. For no reasonable man will want to sacrifice his particular values for a “universal” goal, which is only an abstract idea, i.e. a mirage from the past or a present without a future – in short, a nostalgic dream or an irresponsible adventure.
On the close kinship of the Italians, Spaniards & French –>>
The differences of the national characters cannot mask the fundamental unity of the Latin “mentality,” which is all the more striking to strangers for often going unrecognized by the Latin people themselves. It is, to be sure, difficult to define this mentality, but it can immediately be seen that it is unique, among its type, in its deep unity. It seems that this mentality is specifically characterized by that art of leisure which is the source of art in general, by the aptitude for creating this “sweetness of living” which has nothing to do with material comfort, by that “ dolce far niente” itself which degenerates into pure laziness only if it does not follow a productive and fertile labor (to which the Latin Empire will give birth through the sole fact of its existence).
This shared mentality – which entails a profound sense of beauty generally (and especially in France) associated with a very distinct sense of proportion and which thus permits the transformation of simple “bourgeois” well-being into aristocratic “sweetness” of living and the frequent elevation to delight of pleasures which, in another setting, would be (and are, in most cases) “vulgar” pleasures – this mentality not only assures the Latin people of their real – that is to say political and economic – union . It also, in a way, justifies this union in the eyes of the world and of History. Of the world, for if the two other imperial Unions will probably always be superior to the Latin Union in the domain of economic work and of political struggles, one is entitled to suppose that they will never know how to devote themselves to the perfection of their leisure as could, under favorable circumstances, the unified Latin West.
On the will to political autonomy and self-rule
Now, the fundamental political category is that of independence or of autonomy. It is generally said that political will is a will to power or to “greatness.” Without a doubt. But it would be more correct and more precise to say that all truly political will is above all an autonomous will and a will to autonomy. For “power” is only a medium for realizing autonomy, and “greatness” is a simple consequence of this realization. Considered as a political entity, the State does nothing more than to bring about a will to autonomy; through it [the State] creates and maintains itself, for through it [the State] integrates and governs otherwise disparate particular wills by creating a “general will” out of them, which is nothing other than its own will to autonomy thus made explicit and effective. Conversely, a State no longer driven by an absolute will to autonomy lowers itself to the level of a simple administration, having to serve, at best, the private interests it is moreover incapable of reconciling.
To create a Latin Empire able to exist qua political entity is thus to create and maintain a Latin “general will,” autonomous in its will and desiring the maximum autonomy compatible with the general political situation of the day. Put differently, the Empire’s actions must follow, in the final analysis, from the imperial peoples’ will to union and must be as independent as is possible and reasonable from foreign wills or actions. Practically, this signifies that the decisions taken by the Empire concerning its internal structure and conduct, as much as its foreign relations, must not be understood simply as a function of the desires and the actions of the two already existing rival Empires.
Why the Latin Empire must have a capable military if it is to be truly independent
Like all will in general, the political will to autonomy can be fulfilled only by meeting and overcoming resistance. It must thus be armed against the latter, and this is why it must manifest itself, among other things, in the form of an army – of earth, of the sea, and of the air. Not that a will to autonomy need necessarily be “militarist” or “war-mongering,” nor that an imperial will need always be “imperialist.” On the contrary, “militarism” and “imperialism” are outgrowths of a fundamentally undeveloped will to autonomy and do not use truly powerful means of execution (and this is why “militarism” is born of danger, and above all of defeat, which is to say of a weakness, whether only possible or already realized). It is those phenomena which characterize, above all, national political existence, a Nation always being a fragile foundation for the will to autonomy driving it. By providing it with more effectiveness and security, an imperial foundation would thus render this will fundamentally peaceful, if not “pacifist.” For if war is waged to safeguard a threatened, and thus wavering, autonomy, it is in and through peace alone that autonomy becomes strong and substantial, and flourishes. But insofar as there will be a plurality of Empires in the world, each of them will conserve a remnant of “national” – not to say “nationalist” – weakness and thus an “imperialist” and bellicose touchiness. And this is why the Latin Empire will need an Army. It will need an army powerful enough to be able to assure its autonomy in peacetime, and peace in autonomy, and not in dependence on one of the two rival Empires. Of course, this imperial Army must be one and unique, and must be supplied in all ways by the Empire as a whole. Only an Empire can, moreover, support the burden of an effective army in modern conditions, a burden that would crush the economy of any isolated Nation. And the imperial military potential would allow the strict limitation of operational armaments – always too expensive and prematurely obsolete – at least during certain periods. But it is also very clear that France is called upon to play the foremost role in the Empire’s military effort. Here, perhaps, more than elsewhere, its time-honored military virtues and its long experience enable it, moreover, to confront the cooperative competition of the Spanish and Italian members fearlessly. And by giving the Latin Army a particularly French character, France will correspondingly ensure itself a fair and justifiable general predominance within the Empire this Army maintains.
Alexandre Kojeve – another run of the mill Russian/KGB spy. Good luck selling his maskirovka idiocy.
National states are relevant, NATO and EU are relevant and can be improved. Russia is evil.
How do you propose that national states defend themselves against Russia or China?
EU and NATO – article 5. And US nuclear insurance.
If US can’t or won’t, then Germany has to go nuclear. (It won’t be only Germany.) And also there will be no petro-dollar and no Bretton Woods. (Won’t happen).
On this one point we agree == Germany must re-arm and go nuclear, both for civilian and military purposes.
Small nations can defend themselves from big nations or empires by seeking alliances with other nations or empires, as we have seen throughout history.
An alliance is a temporary solution to a temporary problem. NATO should have been dissolved once the USSR collapsed.
In today world has to exist something permanent. If Russia invades there are no time to make alliances, or make the armies interoperable, or to standardize the ammunition, procedures, command, communications.
Until the Russian invasion in Ukraine, in Romania NATO was practically nonexistent. Besides an anti-missile defensive system in a remote village there was no NATO, anywhere. The Russian psychopath feels insecure if he can not level to the ground any Eastern European city, from safe distance of course.
Due to the Kremlin halfwit dimwit, now we have a permanent NATO battle group. Two months ago it would have been considered absolutely useless.
NATO is so important that neutral countries like Sweden and Finland are contemplating extremely seriously to join in. Putin considered that violating the Sweden airspace is not enough, so he sent 2 SU24 planes equipped with nuclear weapons. Absolute stupidity. What Sweden should do?
In one masterly move Putin secured NATO existence for the next 50 years.
So long as Europe is organized into small states, it will be dominated by external empires, with all attendant consequences.
Will it? Europe when it pulls together can counterbalance any superpower. And it can do so while remaining an alliance of small sovereign states.
“Europe when it pulls together can counterbalance any superpower. And it can do so while remaining an alliance of small sovereign states.”
Can you provide examples of alliances of small sovereign states that counterbalanced a superpower. (I mean real life examples, not The Lord of the Rings.)
Let me just ask you: would Europe alone, minus the US, be able to hold its own against America, Russia, or China?
Clearly, the answer is yes.
No, even if they don’t combine, but they will.
Europe against the US – fail.
Europe against Russia & China – fail.
Europe & US against Russia & China – maybe, but back to the Stone Age.
Recommended reading: the history of WW1 and WW2. The Axis is a failed concept. Europe can’t compete on the world stage without Russia.
(And you didn’t answer my question.)
Absolutely! Concise, direct and to the point. I heartily agree.
Custom crafted for the low-information reader. You can find the same analysis at the Atlantic Council web site. And this debate should have been between you and Anglin, as he is the most well-informed advocate for Russia in this conflict.
First of all, you accept the legitimacy of NATO–a Cold War relic, key to the American Empire’s military supremacy and neoconservative foreign policy, i.e., wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. Did you support those wars as well?
Secondly, you accept the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government, which was installed by a US State Department engineered coup d’etat, supported by Ukraine’s ‘independent media’ which was set up by the Atlantic Council in 2005. A government which also recently banned all opposition parties and media.
Ukraine is a fake country. It’s borders were arbitrarily carved out of the Soviet Union. This does not mean Ukrainians are a fake people, which I haven’t seen anyone claim. Ignoring this difference is a rhetorical bait-and-switch.
“Once the Ukrainians are stripped of their homeland by war and their national self-consciousness through reeducation, those who survive will be assimilated into Russia. Ukraine and Ukrainians will simply disappear from the pages of history. This is genocide by any reasonable definition, and genocide is wrong.”
Hyperbole, much? This is preposterously sensationalistic. Putin and other Russian officials have made it explicit that this is not their intention. If it was, they would not be going to pains to avoid civilian casualities and the war would have been over in a few days.
But the genocide of Russians in Donbass, that’s OK by you? Because you fail to mention it while you’re on the subject of genocide. Ukrainian paramilitaries have been ethnically cleansing Russians in the Donbass for seven years. Blowing up apartment buildings, for example. But that must be ‘Russian propaganda,’ AKA anything inconvenient to the Atlanticist narrative you are pushing, here. Or else, it’s perfectly OK with you because ‘Ukraine is for Ukrainians.’ Or else, it’s not really happening, it’s just an argument over language–which you also lied about. Which story are you going with here?
You act like this war just started last month and hasn’t been going on for seven years, sparked by a neocon regime change coup. “Putin is KGB” is another line from the neocon toolkit, designed to trigger an uninformed anti-communist reflex on the American right.
“In sum, nationalists in the West should offer unqualified moral support for Ukraine as a victim of military aggression and a target of cultural genocide.”
Cultural genocide? You mean the one in the imaginary scenario you laid out above? This, while you cheer on cultural genocide of ethnic Russians and Russophones in the east.
Military aggression? Seems to me the military aggression is by NATO which has swallowed most of the former Warsaw Pact countries. Wikileaks revealed Hillary Clinton wanted to go to war with Russia, which is a big reason why a lot of people on both the anti-war left and palo-con right supported Trump. But now you seem to want to go to war with Russia (since that is the only end game of your wish list), now that the neocons are using ‘nationalists’ instead of Islamists as foot soldiers.
“We should offer qualified material support — economic boycotts and sanctions, and humanitarian and military aid — that stops short of widening the war.”
Sanctions are war by other means, designed to starve and demoralize civilians. Yet you claim to support ‘humanitarian aid.’ All of these things only serve to widen the war, which you must realize, and therefore which I can only conclude is why you support these measures.
“Finally, Western nationalists should support a negotiated peace as soon as Russia is convinced that it cannot impose its will through military conquest.”
But the US regime (as distinct from the American people) can impose its will through economic and financial terrorism? And peace on whose terms? NATO moved its headquarters to Poland and has missles there and in Romania pointed at Russia, and Ukraine was going to be the next forward base. NATO and Israeli officers have already been training Ukrainian military.
Now we’re arming what’s left of it (armed gangs), as well as every other country on the bloc, because when a peace that is agreeable to both sides is settled, then will come the false flag and NATO troops will become officially involved. It’s in the script, which we’ve seen play out before. You claim to support a negotiated peace, but that peace must respect the wishes of the Donbass which does not want to live under a regime which racially oppresses them. Your claim that the Russian separatists are just a ‘Russian op’ is contradicted by direct accounts of the people there, themselves.
“Thus “de-Nazifying” Ukraine is just another euphemism for cultural genocide.”
Azov battalion are in fact not only openly nazis but some of their leaders I know for a fact are openly Satanic. I won’t mention names, here. Why are you downplaying this fact about the nazis you like on your nazi web site? It seems me you should be glorifying it for consistency’s sake. Ukrainian government officials have published anti-Russian racial propaganda. It’s right out in the open.
“Second, they regard Donetsk and Luhansk as fake Russian ops that do not represent the actual interests or popular will of the Russian minority. Many ethnic Russians are fighting against Russian-backed separatists and Russian invaders alike. Not all ethnic Russians want to be ruled by Moscow. Nevertheless, I think Ukraine may be forced to cede these territories. If it brings even a temporary end to hostilities, it would be worth it.”
How many? If “many ethnic Russians” were really “fighting against Russian-backed separatists” that would have been amplified by NATO and EU mainstream media and political establishment. I see no evidence anywhere for your claim. Everything inconvenient to your narrative is a ‘Russian op.’ Now, where have I heard that before?
“Ukraine does not prohibit them from speaking their native tongues. Indeed, such policies are repulsive to Ukrainians, because under the Tsars and Bolsheviks both, the Ukrainian language was repressed by the state, which is why so many Ukrainians now speak Russian as their first language.”
Another bait-and-switch. No one claimed they were prohibited from speaking Russian. They have been prohibited from using Russian in school and church. You also got it exactly backwards. Under Stalin there was a policy of Ukrainization, where people in the Ukraine where forced to speak Ukrainian, in line with his ‘socialism in one country’ policy.
A personal note: seeing you dumb down your writing and take these positions is disappointing to say the least. It’s like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The same with Jim Goad and others who take the ‘know-nothing’ or ‘no brother wars’ position, the purpose of which is to simply not push back against the pro-Azov position while appearing objective.
Perhaps it’s done to differentiate your brand. Or because you are socially liberal and anti-Christian. Do you hate Richard Spencer so much that you decided to become a full-throated Atlanticist? I can’t help but wonder why this publication has been allowed to continue to exist while so many others have been cancelled. Maybe to get nationalists to support neocon wars that are against their own national interest?
It’s as if all they had to do was sew on a wolfsangel patch to get you to follow them anywhere. Why did you stop writing about Jews on this web site? What happened to you in jail in Hungary? What happened to you at that conference in Ukraine? “Why are you lying?”
This is a really artful compilation of Russian lies, seething snark, and paranoid ideation.
As you can see things are this ridiculous.
They lie, they justify one lie by using older lies, proved to be lies.
They invert the causal chain and justify past events with events that happened later.
They have as many narratives as audiences. They do it so shamelessly, that they are holding opposing and mutual exclusive theories as simultaneously valid.
The facts and events that oppose their narrative are simply deleted, forgotten, dismissed, at best utterly distorted.
It is not true what you see with your eyes, it is true what the priest-party secretary, secret police, and officials tell you.
The theory and the words are all that matters. The fact and the truth are to be dismissed because something: you stupid, you pagan, you christian, you communist, you anti-communist, you left, you right, you this, and you that of course.
Imagine how hard it is for a Russian living in Russia to understand something out of what is happening. How hard it is if smart and talented people, writing right here on CC, fall this hard for Russian propaganda.
This propaganda machine predates the SU, in fact it was at first formalized by Ochrana and perfected by NKVD, (using the discoveries of Ivan Pavlov and later of Anton Makarenko). Also, it has its origins in the most disgusting christian brainwashing techniques.
Now, how someone can believe that Russians will suddenly change their ways to be accepted by other Europeans?
After the last invasion, after 30 years of continuous war and attacks against their neighbors, after menacing everyone with nuclear war, after 30 years from the supposed break with the bolshevik past, time during nothing has changed, I would say they will never change and never wanted to.
Instead it is the time for us to change, to unite, to understand what generates our problems. And it is time to understand that Russia is and always was part of our problems.
I agree with your views on Russia (you can read my own thoughts on the topic here).
But is not fair to say that this article could have been published at the Atlantic Council. Would the Atlantic Council have recommended that the Ukraine cede Russia the Donbass? Or decried the demonisation of Putin as unhelpful?
Nor is it fair to imply ulterior motives. Counter-Currents is nearly as censored as the Daily Stormer. It is cut off from payment processors. I’ve purchased books from C-C and had to This argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is that everything other than tiny websites on the dark web with a readership in the hundreds are compromised.
The accusation that Greg Johnson is only supporting Russia because he is anti-Christian is especially risible, as Ukraine is the most religious East Slavic country, and Russia-hating Western Ukraine is likely the most religious region of the entire East Slavic world.
And incase you haven’t noticed, Richard Spencer has become a straight-out pro-ZOG Atlanticist traitor. Greg Johnson supports Ukraine, as far as I can tell, in spite of the ZOG supporting it. Richard Spencer supports Ukraine because ZOG supports Ukraine.
All that said, I have to agree with your suggestion that Greg Johnson debate Andrew Anglin. I always considered Anglin an intellectually unserious but highly entertaining parodist, but he can be surprisingly eloquent in debates. I remember the debate on coronavirus. I went in leaning towards Anglin’s position, and came out completely convinced of it. I would be very interesting to see the two of them hold another debate on Ukraine.
Either debate Anglin or Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson of Radio Albion.
I enjoyed your (James Tucker) article, by the way, and agree with all of your main points. I also agree with your defense of Greg Johnson against the scurrilous insinuations of the poster above. I disagree with Greg about the Russia-Ukraine issue, but his sincerity and commitment to the cause of the white race (and racial and gender realism) cannot be doubted by any reasonable person.
Thank you for the kind words!
And yes, whatever disagreements we might have with the boss, I can’t question his sincerity. Nor his commitment to open discussion. I really appreciate that.
With all respect to the writers at CC, this article by Gregory Hood at Amren is the best I have read on this subject: https://www.amren.com/commentary/2022/03/ukraine-and-the-coming-test-for-europe/
I agree with you that Mr Hood’s article is excellent. I fully agreed with and liked your article too Mr Tucker. Prof. Duchesne has also posted two very good articles at CEC. Finally, there is a new contributor at TOO (his name escapes me and I’m with a lot of work now) who has made some excellent contributions; he was mentioned at Red Ice TV.
In my opinion (and I should stress that I am neither a military nor a geopolitical expert), Ukraine is being used as a pawn (cannon fodder, as Mr Hood wrote) by the Globalist elites, the Davos crowd, WEF, or whatever you want to call them. They’ve been pushing for this war and for sanctions to destabilise Russia and orchestrate regime change through a colour revolution. Then they could install a compliant puppet like Trudeau. After that, they would go after China.
There is no New World Order without having those countries subjugated, and this is their goal.
As to Mr Johnson’s position –with all due respect– I don’t know what to make of him. Not only he is supporting this Azov battalion which might be CIA infiltrated, funded and trained, he is even insulting readers who write comments he disagrees with. I supported C-C last year. I don’t think I will this time around. Call me paranoid, but I will lie low until I am clear of what is going on here.
Your opinion is pretty much a verbatim Russian talking point, which is not surprising given the flood of Russian propaganda sloshing around in our movement. Russia wishes to frame this as a conflict between Russia and the West. Hence the claims that Ukrainians are helpless pawns of outside forces. In truth, Ukrainians had ample reason to fear Russia, based on a long and bitter history of conflict, and since gaining their independence from the USSR, they have been “using” the West as a counter-balance against Russia, just as the West has been “using” them. That’s what small nations stuck next to large, aggressive empires do. We just need to be realistic about this.
I am out of patience with lies, snark, paranoia, and insults. Sorry if that offends you. I will happily refund any support you have given.
Mr Johnson, I’m really sorry for getting you tired. And I apologise if you felt that I insulted you or felt I was being snarky.
Maybe you are right that I am just regurgitating Russian propaganda because I have been brainwashed by them.
So I tell you what – – for the sake of keeping the peace in the family – – I will not post any more comments about this war until it’s over.
Cheers!
I could literally spend all day reading CC, so I think my subscription is unbeatable value for money. The editor’s unpopular views on covid and Ukraine have just made it more fun (fiddling while Rome burns, I know).
I am glad that you enjoyed my article.
But I would advise against overreacting, especially to an internal disagreement on geopolitics. Please calm down.
I am quite certain that there is nothing sinister or amiss behind Greg Johnson’s position.
If you support National-States v Imperialism then you can’t align yourself with the American Imperial project Pax-Americana of enforcing Liberal Democracy in every corner of the World.
I am thankful to my Souther friends for eloquently explaining why the Conservative Nationalists in the U.S. should support Russia:
https://identitydixie.com/2022/02/28/what-should-southern-nationalists-make-of-russia-and-ukraine/
https://identitydixie.com/2022/03/05/the-ukrainian-gell-mann-amnesia-effect/
http://www.dissidentmama.net/russia-ukraine-through-a-dixian-lens-part-1/
You insist on reverting to the false Russian frame that this is merely a clash between the American Empire and the Russian Empire.
The response from some Western nationalists and dissident right (I firmly believe they are in minority) toward the Russians is purely instictive hatred of them, since they attacked the ‘good Slavs’ the friends of Anglo-Saxon tribe. I am afraid we, specifically Balkanoids of the Orthodox faith) wouldn’t have a place in the new Ethno-state.
This is cheap psychologizing as a way of dismissing views you don’t like.
It has nothing to do with liking but with pure tribalism. I am partial toward the Russians for the personal reasons. Even though both are my brothers I see one ‘brother’ as a traitorous one, but the fratricide still pains me, as much as bloody break up of Yugoslavia, where ethnic differences were much wider than between the Russians and the Ukrainians.
The Slavs, if not a higher civilization, it’s one with virtues lacking in the West.
Leaving aside all argument, and as a “Nazi” who supports the Ukrainians fighting for their folk and land…
I appeal to the friends and fans of the Russian Federation:
The time has come for you to switch to “Russia Stop!”.
Do you want Russia to entirely bleed out on the Ukrainian knife in their belly?
And isn’t it scary to think that now the world knows Russian Forces are a bad joke, that the only thing left for Russian Forces is to threaten with Nukes (or other weapons of mass destruction).
I admire the Ukrainians fighting for their land and folk.
But I don’t want the Russians to fall apart and become nothing but nuclear terrorists!
Somebody get Vlad to call the former-superpower-suicide-prevention-hotline immediately!
Not Joking!
Friends of Russia, Lovers of Russia — stop enabling Russian suicide!
Help them to stop instead.
What Russian suicide? You are drinking too much of the Western media cool-aid. They accomplished what they planned in their phase 1. They control the swats of territory the size of the Great Britain, in three weeks, the same time the U.S. took Baghdad. The Americans either don’t understand the Russian doctrine or they deliberately are lying about it. The Russians are interested in destruction of Armies, not capturing the cities (the same method they used in Syria) while they have an open door to dialog, the way Clausewitz described as ‘politics as continuation of war by other means.’ Troops around Kyev was a distraction to enable encirclement if some 60+ thousand of Ukrainian troops in Donbas. In Mariupole, there is a corridor open for the citizens to flee. Azov was shooting civilians during the evacuation three weeks ago, today they are all cooped up inside the Steele factory. Deliberation is if the Russians will pulverize the place or allow them to surrender. Lieutenant General Kadyrov is in the city to oversees the final push. The numbers of the casualties on the Russian side is a pure propaganda. The accomplishment of the Russians will be studied in the future, despite the 1 : 3 ratio in troops. When did the U.S. military win a battle when it met an opponent of the equal strength, again?
What Russian suicide?
The one in Ukraine of course, where they invaded and are losing badly because Ukrainians are fighting like heroes and the Russain Forces turned out to be a sad excuse for a modern military.
That one!
You’re welcome.
You’ve completely bought into the latest lies by the same media that always lie. Did you also buy into Iraqi WMDs, “climate change”, “global warming” and “police brutality”?
In case, it’s not clear to you, Russia is winning and will win. The drivel about “Ukrainians fighting like heroes” is ridiculous propaganda ridiculously parroted by you.
Yet you trust the Russian media. Russia’s troops have been bogged down for more than four weeks now and are losing ground in places. Go ahead and tell me that’s because this is a kind and gentle invasion.
Ray,
I don’t get my information from the Jews-Media (or from RT like you do, lol), I do my own research and pursue original sources for direct consumption and to form my own opinions — the farthest thing from “parroting”.
(Although it can be useful to check the Jews-media or Tele-Putina to see what the current evil talking points and propaganda agenda might be).
So of course I don’t believe in all that non-sense, including all that “Russia is good guy in Ukraine” nonsense.
And yes, I noticed that the Raggedy Bear conquered Ukraine in 72 hours like the said they would (and you no doubt “parroted”, lol).
And last night an Oil Depot near Russian town of Belgorod was destroyed by two mysterious Helicopters (origin neither confirmed nor denied — maybe it was “little green men” who took over the Crimea — they’re pretty sneaky), so much winning! All part of the Putin plan I’m sure.
Remember what our old Greek ancestor Pyrrus said?
If the Raggedy Bear gets too much more “winning” like the last six weeks — well, what Pyrrus said.
If you really loved the people of Russian you would join me in shouting:
“Russia, STOP!”
“Go ahead and tell me that’s because this is a kind and gentle invasion.”
Ukrainians fight bravely. They also have full access to US military intelligence and receive significant arms shipments.
Russia has enough firepower to erase every Ukrainian city and town from the face of the Earth. But that would kill millions of people, and they can’t afford that politically.
That’s not exactly a moral endorsement of the Russian leadership.
You can trust Putin. He’d only annihilate you if he could get away with it.
I’m not in the business of morally endorsing this or that side. That’s an American thing, to frame every political question in terms of good vs. evil. I’m Hungarian.
What Russian suicide?
The one where they invaded Ukraine and got defeated by the men of that “non-existent” state of Ukraine.
That one.
Oh wait, you say: “They accomplished what they planned in their phase 1”.
Oh I see, you think Russians conquered the non-existent state of “Ukraine” in three days? Or was it two days? You should go back and check what your kool-aid was saying back then – lol.
But of course now it was the plan to fail and loose all those men and materials!
Russian genius and your belief in it are truly dizzying, lol.
Now they will try to just steal the East.
Perhaps they cleverly plan to be defeated there too?
You can explain it to us later.
…In reality, La Putin has shown the world that much vaunted Russian forces are a bad joke. Not Quality of 2nd army in the world but Quality of 2nd army in Ukraine, lol. Now Putin will throw more Quantity of low quality at the Ukrainian maker of “Russian” sausage and leave Russia vulnerable to any invader that isn’t afraid of his Nuclear weapons threat. (Like China which will be happy to take the Russian East away from the low quantity of low quality that will remain after Russian Forces bleed out in Ukraine.
That suicide.
Unless the Jew’s running US Government conspire with the Jews running Ukraine government to betray the Ukrainian people by cutting off the weapons and support, Russia will lose in the East as well.
Then what? Threaten the world with Nuclear weapons? Become a nuclear terrorist state? Let the tattered little baby bear finish murdering Ukraine or he will nuke you?
If the world has to choose between Russian nuclear terrorism and a world without Russia, the world will choose a world without Russia, and rightly so.
That suicide.
Russia must stop or its only hope will be that the Jews save it by conspiring to betray the Ukrainian and International Nationalist warriors who are winning in Ukraine.
If you love Russian people you should get the facts and change your tune.
seems like another white genocide war with the tribe funding both sides. israel is playing neutral of course, meanwhile all other countries who are neutral get a morals lesson from the united state about how they need to denounce russia. jews who have been living in ukraine and russia as long as the natives all fled to israel, of course their only solidarity is with the tribe. meanwhile the non white minorities are all using it as an excuse to go into west europe posing as ukrainians. the only ones dying are white slavics.
i enjoyed a movie called “snipers war” the point of view of a serbian sniper who joined russia to fight nato after they bombed serbia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH_nbsvch0g
their point of view is that america (and israel) are funding rebels in a proxy war vs russia. They constantly shell eachother with innocent civilians stuck in between and russians went in to create a demilitarized buffer zone
The Ukraine isn’t a sovereign nation. It’s a plantation and brothel under Jewish domination. It’s amazing that Greg Johnson can’t tell the difference.
So if a nation has a president that an American doesn’t like, it loses its sovereignty and can be invaded at will by someone else. There’s no difference between your attitude and Hilary Clinton’s, just a difference in the excuses offered for intervention. “You did a racism? The missiles are in the air.”
Russia is a whorehouse too. With nukes. Thanks to the enlighted Putin. You should take a look at Putin’s family, legitimate and ilegitimate childrens too. Or maybe to the “handsome” son in law. And if that is not enough you can take a look at the Russian diva Alla Pugacheva. That’s sick.
Every country under Russian influence is doomed to become a whorehouse. That’s why the Ukrainians rebeled. To get rid of the FSB connected mobsters that transformed their country in a whorehose. That’s why.
Kirill Shamalov – take a look at this cartoonish villain, presidential son in law. That’s a greasy individual!
And this is what you defend against any proof.
The relationship between Russia and the Ukraine is not even remotely analogous to that between the US and England. Russia is certainly not an offshoot of the Ukraine. Russia originated in Kiev, which is obviously the basis for that claim, but Kiev was never “Ukranian” in any real sense. Kiev was lumped into “Ukraine” by the Soviet regime for political reasons despite being both then and now a Russian-speaking city. Yes, Kiev, for those who didn’t know, along with Kharkov and Odessa, is a Russian-speaking city. The only real Ukrainians, who speak Ukrainian as a native tongue, (although Ruthenians is probably a more accurate term) are the folks in western Ukraine. They should have their own small, non-Jewish dominated state, but it shouldn’t include regions with a Russian majority.
No, you are simply wrong. The analogy is quite exact.
Beyond that, Russian-speaking isn’t the same as Russian, just as English-speaking isn’t the same as English. Many Ukrainians speak Russian as a consequence of Russian imperialism, much in the same way that the Irish speak English now. But speaking Russian does not make Ukrainians Russian, and speaking English does not make the Irish Englishmen.
Actual ethnic Russians in Ukraine are a small minority, and many of them do not want to be ruled by Moscow either. The idea that Moscow is the natural capital for all ethnic Russians much less Russian speakers is absurd and dangerous, since it turns Russian minorities abroad into putative fifth columnists for Moscow and provides endless pretexts for Russian imperialism and interventions.
“It is not unreasonable for citizens of Ukraine to study the Ukrainian language in their schools. It is not oppression to require it.”
Minorities aren’t required to “study the Ukrainian language”. They are required to study _in_ the Ukrainian language. From 5th grade, every subject, except their own language and literature classes are required by law to be in Ukrainian. And Ukrainian is never taught as a foreign language. The reasoning is that ethnic minorities are not “real”, e.g. Hungarians are not real Hungarians, just Hungarianized Ukrainians who refuse to speak Ukrainian out of “contempt”.
“Ukraine does not prohibit them from speaking their native tongues. Indeed, such policies are repulsive to Ukrainians”
Languages other than Ukrainian are only permitted in private settings and religious services. In all other areas of life Ukrainian should be spoken, with minority languages allowed only if the speakers comply with cumbersome rules and regulations that are impossible to comply with.* Non-compliance is considered “contempt of the state language” and is punishable with ridiculously high fines.
There are so many untruths in this article that I recommend you just take it down and rewrite. Google is your friend.
*For example if you were to move Counter-Currents to a Ukrainian server, you would have to translate the entire website, and make sure visitors first see the Ukrainian version of the articles, and can only proceed to other language versions through clicking a link.
There’s nothing unreasonable about teaching school in Ukraine in the Ukrainian language. In the United States, we teach school in English, and we don’t just start doing that in the fifth grade. We do, however, provide English as a second language instruction to immigrants.
Minorities in Eastern Europe are usually not immigrants.
There are old people in Transcarpathia who were born in Czechoslovakia, spent some of their childhood in Hungary, most of their adult life in the Soviet Union (Russia), and now they are citizens of Ukraine — all the while never leaving their village. (I’m older than Ukraine.)
Apparently you don’t understand the moral difference between a Somali immigrant in the American Midwest and and indigenous minority person in Eastern Europe. Please stop commenting on our affairs.
I don’t think there is a meaningful distinction between ethnic minority groups and legal immigrants to a country. How they got there is less important than how they are going to live there. Presumably, they both have their own languages and cultures, yet there’s nothing wrong with requiring that they learn the dominant language and accommodate the dominant culture.