Counter-Currents
2,388 words
Czech version here, French version here
In my debate with E. Michael Jones on the Ukraine War, my opening statement argued that nationalists in the West — and indeed, around the world — should support Ukraine against its invader, Russia. E. Michael Jones argued that Westerners should not support Ukraine.
Jones began with the history of Jews in Ukraine, apparently assuming that if Jews are involved with anything, it can’t be good. Then he argued that the war is really not between Russia and Ukraine but between Russia and America. There wasn’t a lot of substance to his argument, so I will address it only in passing while dealing with bigger issues.
I will grant that Jews are overrepresented in positions of power in Ukraine and the West, but they are also overrepresented in such positions in Russia. Thus there are Jews on both sides of this war, so no matter which side you take, you are going to end up agreeing with some Jews. Thus this war cannot be seen simply as Jews vs. non-Jews. You can’t explain the differences between two parties in terms of what they have in common. This war is about another, more fundamental clash between Russia and Ukraine that has polarized the Jewish community as well.
Is this an ethnic war between Ukrainians and Russians?
Ethnicity certainly plays a large role in the enmity between ordinary Ukrainians and Russians. But this explanation is not sufficient, either. The focus of the war has now shifted to East Ukraine, which has large ethnic Russian minorities, and where Russia and two breakaway puppet states, the Donetsk and Luhansk “People’s republics,” have been fighting Ukrainian forces since 2014.
But there, at the heart of the war, the conflict is not simply between Ukrainians and Russians. It is also between Russians and Russians. Ethnic Russians in the Donbas region are fighting against ethnic Russian separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk, who are aided by Russians from Russia as well as foreign antifa and Communists, some from the Third World. These separatist states are Russian military operations, controlled by Moscow. If Kyiv granted their independence today, they would be applying for union with Moscow tomorrow.
Furthermore, Russians from Russia herself have come to Ukraine to fight against Russia.
Why are Russians fighting Russians in Donbas? Why do Russians in Donbas not wish to be ruled by Moscow? The answer is complex. Based on conversations I had with Russians in Ukraine, both when I visited Ukraine in 2018 and later, by means of the internet, three reasons stand out.
First, some Russians see this as a war against Communism, plain and simple: the Communism of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s republics and their foreign antifa fighters. They associate Communism with terror, death, and rule by scum. They don’t wish to submit to that.
This might not be the most sophisticated understanding of what is going on in Donbas. If you tell them that Putin is really behind the breakaway republics, they will simply tell you that KGB alumnus Putin is a Bolshevik as well. They don’t care if people are hoisting the Soviet flag out of nostalgia, irony, or red-brown fusionism. They think people who fly that flag and carry arms against them are the enemy and deserve to die.
Russian anti-Communists in Ukraine mock Western ethnonationalists who suggest that they should cede sovereignty to Communists on ethnonationalist principles, as if Communists are setting up ethnostates and wish to grant equal rights to Ukrainians to have their own state. Besides, where would that leave Russians who don’t want to be ruled by Moscow?
Second, some Russians are fighting alongside Ukrainians against Moscow and its proxies because they regard Ukraine as the cradle of their civilization, much as Americans, Canadians, and other Anglosphere-dwellers regard England and the broader United Kingdom. Just as Rightist Americans like T. S. Eliot were attracted to England because they felt that America was a fallen civilization — fallen away from important things still preserved at its source –, some Russians are attracted to Ukraine. Many Russians who come to Ukraine in particular reject the Byzantine and Mongol-influenced despotism associated with Moscow for the more egalitarian, free-spirited, nationalistic — and Western — political traditions associated with the Kievan Rus and later the Cossack hosts. Ukraine, whatever its faults, is a freer and more Western country than Russia, and some Russians gravitate toward that, seeing it as a part of their own heritage that has been lost in Russia.
Third, Russian ethnonationalists have taken refuge in Ukraine because they are persecuted in Russia. Putin’s Russia is a multiracial, multicultural empire, with an aggressively multicultural ideology. Russia is ruled by a small oligarchy that is visibly less ethnically Russian than the Russian Federation as a whole. It is worth looking at the “early life” sections of Russia’s richest men: Jews, part-Jews, Uzbeks, Muslims from the Caucasus, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, and other non-Russian ethnic groups are all overrepresented. It is surprisingly difficult to find information on the ethnicity of Putin’s cabinet ministers (or their wives), but Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is half-Tuvan/half-Ukrainian, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is half-Armenian/half-Russian, and former Transport Minister Igor Levitin is a Jew from Ukraine. If Russia put Russians first, this elite’s power and wealth would be threatened. Thus, just as in the West, the Russian oligarchy pushes multiculturalism and suppresses Russian ethnonationalism.
When Russian ethnonationalists complain that Russian birthrates are below replacement, whereas indigenous Mongoloid and Muslim populations are rising, the elites feel threatened. They don’t care about Russian ethnic interests. They care about maintaining peace among the different peoples of their empire.
When Russian ethnonationalists complain about being displaced by Muslim immigrants from the post-Soviet “Stans,” the elites feel threatened. Like Western elites, Russia’s rulers feel more secure if they can dilute the Russian majority with outsiders.
Russian ethnonationalists complain that the Russian military is increasingly reliant on non-Russians — Mongoloids and Muslims — who create ethnic mafias in the military and prey upon ethnic Russians. These troops are also more likely to commit war crimes than Russian troops (handy, if you treat war crimes as a tool of policy).
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here
Russia’s rulers, however, have always recruited non-Russians for their military: under the Tsars, under the Soviets, and after the Soviets. This is an old tool of imperial statecraft. One creates an empire by sending one’s own people to die conquering other peoples. Obviously, rulers who do that can’t have a deep attachment to their own countrymen to begin with. One holds onto an empire by using conquered peoples to garrison other parts of the empire, including the “homeland,” since soldiers are more willing to kill people who don’t belong to their own ethnic group.
Empires also promote outsiders into their ruling elites. Thus Russia’s rulers have never been all that Russian, even under the Tsars, when the elites interbred with Mongols and then Germans. Bolshevism changed the ruling elite, filling it with peoples conquered by the Tsars: Jews, Georgians, Poles, Latvians, Ukrainians, and so on, as well as ethnic Russian Bolsheviks. But this new elite still feared the ethnic Russian majority and continued to play the old games of imperial statecraft to keep them subjugated. Even today, Russia’s multiethnic rulers are more afraid of ethnic Russians than they are afraid of Muslims and Mongoloids, so they don’t see an increasingly non-Russian military as a problem.
Russia’s military is just as wedded to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” propaganda as the Western military. Nationalists argue that this weakens the military. This is true, if one thinks of the military as primarily a tool to fight foreign wars. It is false, if one thinks a white military is a threat to the power of the elites and a diverse military is a handy tool to suppress the white majority. Our rulers and the Kremlin’s are united on this point.
This is why the oft-cited comparison of Russian and American military recruitment videos is laughable. The Russian video features a tough, masculine white guy (who is reportedly a gay porn actor). This is contrasted with an American video about a female soldier with two mommies. Of course, the comparison is highly misleading, since American military recruiters also appeal to macho white guys (and prepare them for the Great Replacement), and Russians have their own repulsive diversity propaganda. The lesson we are supposed to draw is that our diverse army could never defeat an army of tough Russian white guys. The truth — as we have seen on the battlefield in Ukraine — is that the Russian army is not all that tough, not all that Russian, and not all that white. Russia’s army is as diverse and weak as America’s.
Diversity definitely is a weakness during war. But most of the time we are at peace, and during peace, imperial elites regard diverse armies as less threatening to their power than homogeneous ones.
Putin’s Russia, like America, is a multicultural, multiracial empire ruled by a rootless, sociopathic, and disproportionately alien elite that uses multicultural propaganda and race replacement as tools to suppress the white ethnic majority. Following the Jewish template, Putin stigmatizes all forms of ethnic nationalism as “Nazism” and uses the holocaust as a tool of anti-nationalist, pro-multiculturalist indoctrination.
In America, ethnonationalists are primarily being censored and deplatformed by private corporations. Such harassment is inconvenient, but not insuperable. In Putin’s Russia, however, ethnonationalists face harsh repression and extrajudicial murder. This is why many Russian ethnonationalists chose exile in Ukraine and are now fighting against Putin’s multiracial invaders.
If Russians and Ukrainians are fighting side-by-side against Moscow, this is not primarily an ethnic struggle. What, then, is the deep issue that unites Russians and Ukrainians against Moscow? The real issue is imperialism versus nationalism. Russian ethnonationalists, like Ukrainian ethnonationalists, don’t want to live under Moscow’s multicultural, multiracial, ethnocidal regime.
Russian ethnonationalists agree with the Russians who look to Ukraine and the West as a freer alternative to Russia’s Byzantine-Mongol despotism, but their deeper concern is that the Russian imperial machine is inimical to the very existence of the Russian people, expending their lives in imperial wars then using subject peoples to tyrannize over and ethnically displace them.
Even though Russia shed vast numbers of non-white subjects after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the secession of the various Stans, there are millions of non-Russians within Russia’s borders. Russians are about 80% of the current population, but their birthrates are below replacement, while the birthrates of non-Russians — most of them non-whites or Muslims — are above replacement. Russian ethnic decline is thus built into the current system, even without non-white immigration, which is also flowing in from the Stans. Beyond that, if the Eurasiansists have their way, Russia may well reabsorb some of the Stans. They are already pursuing extensive economic integration with Central and East Asia. None of this bodes well for ethnic Russians. Imagine what America would be like today if China, not Mexico, were on its southern border.
Russian ethnonationalists also agree with the anti-Communist Russians who took up arms against the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk, but they think there is a deeper problem here than just the Communist ideology of the breakaway republics and their foreign fighters. Donetsk and Luhansk are simply Russian imperial operations. Their appeals to Marxism are just tools of Russian imperialism. The real enemy is the Russian imperialist mentality and machine, which are far older than Marxism and the USSR.
Although Putin follows the Jewish playbook of stigmatizing all forms of ethnonationalism as “Nazism,” some of the Russian ethnonationalists in Ukraine to whom I have talked really are National Socialists. It seems odd for Russians and Ukrainians to be attracted to National Socialism, given that Hitler aimed to reduce their peoples to helots and colonize their lands with Germans. But they reject Hitler’s petty chauvinism out of a sense of racial and civilizational brotherhood. They also typically bond over Black Metal music and mixed martial arts. Like ethnonationalists all over Europe, they are both committed to their own homelands and cultures and also feel deeply connected to our common race and civilization. These nationalists, both Russian and Ukrainian alike, don’t regard ethnic Russians as such as their enemies. Their enemy is Russia’s multicultural ruling elite and its imperialist mentality. This is a far more nuanced outlook than that of the average Russian or Ukrainian man in the street, who at this point hate one another intensely and regard “no more brothers’ wars” moralizing as daft. It sounds paradoxical, but Russian and Ukrainian neo-Nazis are far more capable of living and working together than Russian and Ukrainian normies.
The Ukraine War is a conflict between Russia, a multiracial empire with an aggressive multicultural ideology, and Ukraine, the homeland of the Ukrainian people. This conflict, in one form or another, has existed since the seventeenth century. It has existed longer than the United States, and would exist even if the United States were completely uninvolved. It is far older than NATO and would exist even if NATO were not involved. It would even exist if Jews were not involved. All these other parties are merely accidental, incidental, and along for the ride. If the United States, NATO, and the European Union were not offering aid to Ukraine, the Ukrainians would simply have courted other allies — because the real issue here is the old struggle between Russian imperialism and Ukrainian nationalism.
Imperial Russia has not just started a war against Ukraine. Russia has also vowed to “de-Nazify” Ukraine, which means destroying its national self-consciousness — basically anything that would prevent the Ukrainians who survive from being assimilated by Russia and disappearing from the pages of history. This is simply cultural genocide.
If you are fine with this because you think that Putin is conservative, Christian, reactionary, or illiberal, then you are not a nationalist who puts the preservation of our race and its distinct peoples above all else. Please come clean about this. Then let’s shake hands and part ways here.
In the war between imperial Russia and Ukraine, there’s only one side that genuine ethnonationalists — even Russian ethnonationalists — can support: Ukraine.
Because this conclusion is so blindingly obvious, Russia’s apologists try to reframe this conflict entirely. They claim that Russia is not fighting an imperial war of aggression against Ukraine. Instead, she is fighting a war of self-defense against America, which is “the real imperialist.”
* * *
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!
88 comments
For God’s sake, it is a Zionist war. And, yes, we know that there are plenty of Jews in Russia, Ukraine and, indeed, here in The West. In fact, Russia, Ukraine and The West are ruled by Jews.
And this is the only reason for this War. “War by Deception”. Mossad-style. Admitted, a few oligarchs lose a lot, or at least a bit. But is just like the anecdot about a Lapp, that went to the bank, in the old days, and the bank clerk wrote on the personal bank book under the name “Natti-Jussi”: “Natti-Jussi took a bit money, and a lot was left.” This is Zionist book-keeping, occasionally, unfortunately, even an individulat Jew loses a bit, but, hey, you can bet, a lot is left.
We can analyze to the nth degree the various ethnicities etc., but the number one goal is to keep two great white countries to killing each other, and, yes, to monger hate and keep people killing each other. What is not to like, if you are an oligarch waiting for the collapse of Russia (and Ukraine) to go and fill the pockets with endless oil, gas,and precious minerals. No, no, this is a dream come true, the Zionist Wet Dream.
Even better that there are some bona fide Nazis about. It gives a nice insurance for our Zionist friends to create another bunch of “Holocaust” narratives, if things get out of hand. Which they may…
Plus there is our “greatest ally”, NATO and Israel, keeping an eye on all genuine nationalists. Oh boy, what a fiesta!
Exactly! To lose sight of the real enemy is entirely naive.
I’ve been waiting a week to let the comments percolate in and see the back and forth between Greg and the others. There’s a flaw in Greg’s logic that I believe puts the cart before the horse:
Ethnonationalism, as a system of principles, exists to serve the White Race and White Interests, not the other way around. Such is the case with any system of principles. If they serve our interests and our well being, they are useful and should be promulgated. If they fail to serve our interests or harm our well-being, they should be discarded and replaced with new, better principles. Principles serve the people. The people don’t serve principles.
This has always been controversial in philosophical and intellectual circles because of the need to “save face” by appearing unwavering and committed to one’s “core principles.” It looks bad, weak, hypocritical, inconsistent, etc, to drop principles when they stop working for you. Thus, there is always a temptation to adjust or modify our behavior in accordance with our principles, which effectively forces people to serve principles, in violation of the original purpose of principles. We don’t have principles so we can impress other intellectuals and get a pat on the back. We have them because they advance our interests in some tangible way.
The problem with Greg’s depiction of Ukrainian interests is that we are compelled to accept them at face value regardless of the consequences – to Ukrainians themselves or to other White ethnic groups. I believe the correct approach is to balance Ukrainian interests with Russian interests, filter the information through our own values system and what we are trying to accomplish, and then come to a proper policy conclusion. Simply put, we are supposed to balance all the factors, not just take the Ukrainian side just because it can be called the “Ethnonationalist” side.
It is my position that Russia under Vladimir Putin is basically a 1980s style Ronald Reagan regime modeled on cuckservatism and expansionism within its hemisphere. Such a regime can be criticized from a Pro-White perspective on several fronts, but I would strongly disagree that a Russian version of the Reagan regime is a bigger threat to White Existence then a regime headed by the likes of George Soros and Larry Fink that doesn’t even respect its own “Rules Based Order” of “Liberal Democracy.” Justin Tredeau, Emmanuel Macron, and Joe Biden are bigger threats to White Existence then Vladimir Putin.
There’s a lot in motion right now. Ukraine could be split in half between East and West if the Russian troops successfully encircle most of the Ukrainian forces in the Donbass region. Sergei Lavrov said this week that the invasion of Ukraine was motived in no small part by the goal of ending U.S. global dominance, which is objectively happening right now as most of the nations around the globe ignore U.S. demands to impose sanctions (including India, China, and all of Africa and South America). Russia itself has more or less completely circumvented the sanctions, while European nations are hesitant to cut off Russia energy because they need to keep the heat in their own homes functioning. America and the EU are losing this conflict, and yes, that’s a good thing for White interests, hence why I’ve been against the Ukrainian side from the start. I find Zelensky and his regime much more repulsive and anti-white then anything I’ve heard from Putin’s regime. When balancing the factors, it is not unreasonable for a Pro-White advocate to root for Zelensky’s regime to collapse and be replaced by whatever silly puppet regime Putin and the Kremlin installs.
These are all just standard Russian talking points. The basic false frame is that this is a war against America/NATO/the West not the people of Ukraine. Once that frame is in place, Russia’s apologists argue that we should cheer on a multiracial empire destroying the homeland of the Ukrainian people because that will somehow help ethnonationalism in the West. There are two problems with this argument.
First, as you point out, you can only buy in by dropping ethnonationalism as a principle. Once you are on record defending Putin trashing Ukraine, what, exactly is your objection to swamping Europe with Africans or America with mestizos? After all, this might destabilize the West too.
Second, none of the alleged positive effects of betraying the principle of ethnonationalism necessarily follow. It is hard to predict the consequences of a war, which is why they are so dangerous. So it is extremely foolish to bet on one particular outcome. And, indeed, the outcomes so far are far from what Russia’s shills have predicted. NATO and the US are now much more popular in Europe, Russia is now more isolated and hated, and the shocking weakness of the Russian military may incite Western moves toward a wider war. Of course, if one really wants to destabilize “globohomo,” nothing would beat global thermonuclear war, the greatest reset of all.
The net result of the Russian subversion of our movement is that those who buy in abandon our best arguments and our moral credibility in order to play geopolitical fantasy football. We sacrifice our credibility and get absolultely nothing concrete in return. It is a textbook example of self-defeating behavior.
Arestovych.
I would say that this is not a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but a conflict between Russia and the “West”.
As nationalists, we need the West to lose. It doesn’t really matter how imperial or how communist or how diverse Russia is, Russia is not an existential threat for European nations. The EU and the USA and the liberal ideology they are supporting are the existential threats for all Europeans and for all Whites. If we are to survive as distinctly White European nations, the EU needs to be defeated and dismantled and the influence of the liberal USA over Europe needs to end. The defeat of the West is mandatory of we care about the preservation of our race.
The end of the Cold War is the worst thing that’s happened to white people post WW2. As long as it starts again, it doesn’t matter who wins in Ukraine.
Russia is right now an existential threat to one European nation, Ukraine.
No, Russia is not an existential threat for Ukraine. The war can end tomorrow, with some territorial and political losses for Ukraine, but the Ukrainian nation will continue to exist.
Zelenski and his plans for Ukraine to join the EU are a far greater threat for the Ukrainian nation than Russia. Joining the EU means, on the medium and long term, national extinction for Ukraine, just as it is for every other EU nation.
Today, the enemies of nationalism are EU and the USA, not Russia, China or any other “evil” regime.
I beg to differ. Russians announced that their aim is to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine, i.e., to deprive them of any way to defend their sovereignty and to destroy their national self-consciousness, basically anything that would prevent them from being assimilated by Russia. That is cultural genocide.
No, EU and NATO membership don’t mean extinction for Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine would strengthen the nationalist and conservative nations already in the EU and NATO, like Hungary and Poland.
Russia is an evil imperialist regime with cultural genocide as its goal for Ukraine. China is an evil imperialist regime which is committing cultural genocide against the Tibetans and other minority groups. They are far worse than the West, in fact, because they do not allow any dissent to these policies, so there is little hope of reversing them.
Western liberal democracies are therefore far better for ethnonationalist politics than Russia or China.
No, Ukraine will not strengthen the conservative side in the EU. Ukraine will join as a very pro-EU nation and it is currently hostile towards Hungary. A victory in this war will make the EU bureaucracy stronger and they will have more means to influence elections and eliminate politicians they don’t approve of. There will be no conservative side in the EU, the organization will transition towards a “United states of Europe” quasi-federal state which will crush whatever remains of ethnic nationalism.
I think that you underestimate just how anti-nationalism and anti-White the EU is.
Sorry, that’s simply nonsense. But I understand why Russia apologists push that line.
I’m not a “Russia apologist”. I’m just a nationalist who has seen during the last 15-20 years just how anti-nationalist and anti-White the EU is and how awful its influence was in my country.
No, you’re a Russia apologist, because you are defending Russia.
I’m not defending Russia. Yes, I see it as a far smaller threat when compared to the EU/USA from a White survival point of view. The EU is explicitly anti-White, Russia isn’t. I’m just saying that I think that it is in the interest of European nationalism that the West in its current form should be defeated.
Russia is a far more dangerous threat to white survival than the West, because Russia is just as committed to ethnocide as the West, but in Russia it is also harder to change the regime.
It is in the interest of nationalism for the West in its current form to be defeated. So let’s do it. Vlad and the sick man of Eurasia are not up to the task, and they don’t care about white people any more than our own regimes.
Flavius, you overestimate how powerful the EU is relative to the states that comprise it. The EU as such does not have any ability to eliminate politicians, nor will there be a transition to a federal state, unless the EU shrinks significantly in size to only comprise the most pro-EU states.
Yes, I admit that I may overestimate the power of the EU.
This may come from my specific perception as an Eastern European. In the West, I suppose that you have experienced the shift towards liberalism, progressivism and anti-White/anti-nationalist policies as an internal development.
Here in the East, we experienced this shift as almost exclusively an issue of foreign (Western European/American/EU) influence and pressure. Everything that has to do with liberalism has been imposed on us from the outside, every progressive law was a demand of EU as a condition for joining, every progressive NGO or progressive project is an artificial phenomenon started with foreign money, etc, etc. Even the justice system exclusively serves the interests of the EU: politicians who are mildly skeptics towards the EU are often labeled as “corrupt” and prosecuted, thus eliminated from public life. But pro-EU politicians, who are also corrupt, never face any consequences.
Western liberal democracies are therefore far better for ethnonationalist politics than Russia or China.
Which ones exactly, are they supposed to be? Sweden? UK? FRG? Spain? I really have to laugh out loud! Poland? Hungary? Where the youth is quite crazy about Westerm Globohomo? What Russia or China does not make great countries!
All of them, because all of them offer greater freedom of speech and political organizing than Putin’s gulag or China.
Why are you accepting the regime’s claim to be a ‘liberal democracy?’ We don’t live in ‘liberal democracy’ whatever that means. We live under a government at least as authoritarian as the Putin administration. There is nothing ‘liberal’ about our regime, and it is one of the least democratic to ever exist. Call it out for what it is.
Putin is not a greater threat to Western nationalists than our own regime. Putin is not one of us. He believes in ‘multiculturalism,’ albeit in the sense that Russia is a country with many different ethnic groups and not in the Western sense of ‘importing foreigners and privileging them over the native population.’ He is more interested in keeping Russia together than the ethnic interests of Russians. But he is not drowning the Russian nation in a tide of mass migration or criminalising any expression of Russian ethnic pride, as Western European governments are. Putin is not hostile to the Russian nation as our governments are, he merely subordinates the interests of the Russian nation to the interests of the Russian state. I have spoken online with many Russian nationalists, most anti-Putin, but a few supporters too. None of them share your view in the least. Even his harshest critics of those that I have spoken to acknowledge that Russia is not antiwhite like the West is. Their main complaint is that Putin is the Russian equivalent of a cuckservative. They see him as a weak, moderate, conservative civic nationalist and believe that were he not there, a hardline Russian nationalist could take power. The minority of Russian nationalists that I have spoken to that support him argue that in the short term preserving the unity and geopolitical independence of the Russian Federation is of more immediate importance to the Russian ethnos than internal issues with the country’s minority groups. They also point out that Putin changed the Russian constitution to recognise ethnic Russians as the core of the state. Almost all of Russia’s major cities outside of the ethnic republics, if not all of Russia’s major cities, are over 90% ethnic Russian. Moscow is more Russian than Reykjavík is Icelandic.
It is utterly deranged to claim that the Russian government is worse than Western governments because it is ‘authoritarian.’ Russia is far more liberal than Germany or many other European nations. In Germany a court recently ruled that the AfD’s constitution is unconstitutional because it speaks of preserving the German people. My British and German friends are far more afraid of the government than my Russian friends. Here in Canada the Proud Boys were designated a terrorist organisation, and they are not even ethnonationalists and had committed not a single crime.
Putin’s civic nationalism is not what we are fighting for. He is not us. But he is certainly not worse than our own rulers.
I have a genuine question for you. Let us imagine that Putin is ousted in favour of a genuine ‘Россия для русских’ ethnonationalist government. Would you support it, or would you complain about the new government not respecting the nationalism of the various minority groups of Russia? If it is the latter, then I can hardly see how you can criticise Putin for his multicultural policies, because the alternatives are ‘Россия для русских’ or the breakup of Russia, which would leave millions of ethnic Russians stranded in other people’s new ethnostates and severely weaken the Russian state, leaving the Russian ethnos far worse off than it is currently is and diminishing its power to assert its geopolitical interests globally. This is not comparable to American white nationalists wanting succession, as currently their government uses its geopolitical power entirely to their detriment.
Yes, the liberal democracies of the West are better for white identity politics than Putin’s police state, because we have greater freedom to speak out and politically organize than Russians do. This is a pretty good article on Putin’s repression of ethnonationalists in Russia: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/11/death-russian-171123102640298.html
Putin most certainly does allow non-white immigration from the Stans, and he punishes ethnic Russians who complain about it.
The Russian Federation is about 80% ethnically Russian, and ethnic Russians have very low fertility compared to peoples like Chechens and Tuvans. Thus ethnic Russians would be better off without such territories.
But what of Russians in such territories? They should be brought back to Russia.
There are already millions of Russians outside of Russia, because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even though Putin’s Russia has below-replacement fertility, Putin is not encouraging these Russians to come back to the motherland, even while he tolerates non-Russian immigrants from the Stans. Why? Because Russians in the near-abroad are active fifth columnists or pretexts for endless meddling in the former Republics of the USSR. It is an expression of the evil Russian imperialist mentality that will allow no peace until it is extirpated from the Kremlin.
I don’t provide a platform for people to insult me as “utterly deranged,” so this will be your last comment here.
There is no reason to think Western countries becoming geopolitically weaker will make them less able to implement bad domestic policies. And it is very obviously a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, it’s Ukrainian and Russian soldiers who are dying.
A weaker West may lead to some good outcomes for nationalism. A weaker EU will allow for more countries to have regimes like Hungary, since the EU will have less means of influence. Without EU and generally Western pressure, all of Eastern Europe would be nationalistic and conservative today. Every progressive policy was imposed here from the outside, it was never a demand of the local population.
A weaker West may also mean less immigration, more poverty, more economic and social pressure towards traditional styles of living, less means for degenerates to support their parasytic lifestyles, etc, etc.
If nothing changes, all White nations are going to die.
Sadly, if you hoped these things would have been accomplished by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, you were mistaken.
There is now more solidarity in the EU, less solidarity between Orban and the other V4 countries, greater respect for NATO, greater respect for the United States, and much more widespread loathing for Putin and Russia. With the exception of the last, those are all worse outcomes for ethnonationalists in Europe. Thanks Vlad!
Instead of Western nationalists hoping that Russia or China will defeat our regimes for us, we need to take responsibility for the job ourselves. Surely there are more direct ways to defeat our enemies than passively cheering from the sidelines as Putin’s Eurasian horde trashes one of the whitest nations in Europe.
This is a temporary, emotional reaction, largely supported by non-stop propaganda and censorship. Soon people will forget about Ukraine and get tired of Zelenski and will start noticing their diminished standard or living, the higher prices, inflation, shortages, etc.
But anyway, for the sake of the argument, let’s say that you may be right and that I may be wrong. What’s your suggestion? We should support Ukraine and then what? Continue with business as usual, but with a far stronger EU and USA? Why is that a good outcome for nationalism?
Yes, nationalists should support Ukraine, because that is what our principles demand, and then we will have to work all the harder because NATO and the US will be much stronger opponents, a bad outcome for nationalism for which we will curse Putin and his cheerleaders.
It’s Vova, not Vlad.
Did I get his pronouns right?
The EU is not the reason that western European countries have anti-white governments. The ability of the EU to affect national politics is generally fairly limited. The UK is as anti-white as ever, and a country like Norway is not any less anti-white than Denmark. A regime like Orban’s Hungary exists within the confines of the EU and NATO, and they are not a significant obstacle to such a regime arising in another European country. In every single white country where anti-white policies the population at large has been opposed, there is no special about the EU in regards to this.
Pursuing less immigration by becoming poorer doesn’t strike me as very wise. The logical endpoint of that idea is that every white country should be like North Korea.
“Pursuing less immigration by becoming poorer doesn’t strike me as very wise”
This is the crux of the problem. We want have our cake and eat it too! Actually, ar this point, a lower GDP in the western nations maybe the best solution to the demographic disaster awaiting them. But decades of prosperity have not only softened our bodies, but also our minds. To the point that we are so afraid of “becoming poorer” that we prefer a slow, but comfortable, death!!
Let’s accept your premise that white survival depends on the defeat of the US/EU/NATO. How does Russia conquering and “cleansing” Ukrainian identity accomplish this?
If what you claim is true, you should be cheering on explicit US and NATO military involvement in the war. By your logic only direct confrontation between the West and Russia (WW3) can truly defeat the systems that most threaten our existence, not these proxy wars. Is that your position?
The dynamics of the situation are a confusing mess. There are no worthy states involved. I support non-interventionism on the part of the U.S. and NATO. No more European blood should be spilled over this matter. The conflict is a lose-lose for Ukraine regardless of the ethnonationalist merit of Ukraine’s position vis-a-vis anti-nationalist Russia at this time. Detente and realpolitik are in order for the sake of European life. The hatred of the average Russian and Ukrainian man towards one another is particularly regrettable and counterproductive to the cause of European solidarity and ethnoracial-nationalist awakening.
It looks as though the Ukraine has won this war, so I am now very much hoping that you are correct that a Ukrainian victory is good for nationalists and I will live to eat my own words to the contrary.
You are misrepresenting the Donbass republics. They are not communist, though they have a significant amount of support from antifa tankies globally. ‘People’s Republic’ has a connotation in English that ‘Народная Республика’ lacks in Slavic languages. The first state to officially call itself Ukraine was also a ‘People’s Republic’ (Народна Республіка), and in this case the term implied anti-communism. ‘Народ’ means people in the ethnonational sense, like the German ‘Volk.’ ‘National Republic’ might be a more accurate translation than ‘People’s Republic.’ Both these words have been used by communists (the East German secret police were called the ‘Volkspolizei’), but there is nothing communist about them. In both republics there are nationalists and Soviet nostalgists. Lugansk is pretty nazbolly, but Donetsk is full of Russian wignats. It’s first leader was a former member of the national socialist paramilitary group Russian National Unity and the first leader of the rebel militia was Strelkov, an anti-Putin, anti-communism, neo-White Guardist Russian nationalist. Donetsk has been a rallying ground and haven for Russian nationalists. Moscow later got involved in the Donbass and switched out the people at the top, but beneath them the republic’s ranks are still staffed mostly with radical nationalists and the Moscow-imposed leadership relies almost entirely upon them. A Russian victory would have been incredibly empowering to nationalists in Russia, and virtually guaranteed that they would be in the best position to take power after Putin eventually leaves office.
It looks as though the war is likely to end with a Ukrainian victory, with Ukrainian independence preserved and only the Donbass and possibly Azov regions ceded to Russia. I hope that the LDNR remains nominally independent, instead of FSB moving in and cleaning out the radical nationalists.
Perhaps you mean that Donestk and Luhansk are misrepresenting themselves.
Like I said, the people who think this is just a battle against communism don’t have the most nuanced understanding of what is going on. It is like people on the Right in American identifying the establishment as Marxist. No, not really.
When this is all over, the only places Putin will likely be able to demilitarize and de-Nazify are the Donestk and Luhansk puppet states, which, I will grant, do have their own equivalents of Eric Striker and Andrew Anglin working there for Putin.
The American elite are Marxist. This entire ‘Civil Rights’ antidiscrimination ideology spawned from Marcuse and other Marxist ideologues. It is a revisionist form of Marxism that has made its peace with capitalism and corporate America, similar to neoconservatism.
In the political contest between Imperialism and Ethno-nationalism, Imperialism always triumphs and has always triumphed, because it corresponds more closely to the natural needs of life (expansion, consolidation, assimilation). Empires suffer setbacks, but they never bow to their inferiors.
What Europeans refer to as their ‘values’ is in reality their predicament. Everyone outside of Europe understands it (Hitler understood it, and so did Napoleon). Europeans did not choose to be small, irrelevant, divided, petty and moralistic, it is their destiny and a consequence of failing at political organization (or failing at Imperialism). Now that they have been reduced to this sorry state, they charitably recommend others to also adopt ethno-nationalism – or in other words, irrelevance, pettiness, eternal sub-division and one-sided rules and regulations invented to limit the power of the strong, and to thus become a people without destiny, just like Europeans are a people without destiny, as even Europeans subconsciously understand (unless you believe that economy and production count as a destiny). This is a quintessentially Christian philosophical heritage.
No one in Russia, or China or Iran or Saudi Arabia or India envies Europeans in this regard, and nobody takes European ideas and values seriously either. As far as Ukrainian and Russian Neo-Nazis are concerned, these are the dumbest people on planet, so no surprise they agree about things.
How many empires have died in the 20th century, to be replaced by nation-states?
Like I said, let’s shake hands and part ways here. I no longer wish to travel in the company of anti-nationalists.
How is that a rebuttal? I have affirmed just that. Europe committed a political suicide in the 20th century, and wants everyone else to do so, lest they become ‘immoral’.
These classifications are meaningless, and not at all beneficial for the development of intellect. You can’t just create your own checkbox based on your own idiosyncratic priorities, and say whoever does not agree to A, B, C is not a nationalist. Let us preserve European nations (but not in the way you preserve things in a museum), but this state of affairs where you have tiny polities with their countless tongues, one-sided grievances tied in a sack with no way out doesn’t work. In its relations with Russia, Europe must learn to think as an Empire, not as a club of invalids.
You have not offered an argument. You’ve simply expressed your contempt for European nationalism. But even by the measure of pure power politics, the current “club of invalids” is proving to be more than a match for Putin’s Russia, which is now the sick man of Eurasia.
If you are opposed to “petty ethnonationalisms”, are you at least advocating for some kind of pan-European (white/racial) nationalism? Or are you more of what I suppose could be called a “multicultural fascist” (which is kind of what Putin seems to be)? There might be an interesting debate lurking somewhere in here. I myself value Ukrainians and (white) Russians much more for their race than their ethnicities (not that I wish to see any European ethnicities disappear).
If I am not mistaken he is advocating for a pan-European imperium alla F.P.Y.
“Let us preserve European nations (but not the way you preserve things in a museum) . . .”
No, we do indeed need to preserve nations as if in a museum, which it is to me, through my studies of Art History, the very definition of culture and national identity. People who live in European countries are proud of and protective of their fine buildings, art, music and natural surroundings, and of course, their ethnic cultures which define their existence. Witness the meticulous rebuilding of Notre Dame in Paris ongoing today, and the preservation of the Roman Coliseum in Italy, and the many ancient Temples in Greece. People preserve these artifacts as part of their culture, just as they preserve their language, their dances and folk songs, and traditional ways of ‘doing things’. This is the basis of Nationalism itself.
I am just heartbroken over the destruction in Ukraine, which includes libraries, art museums, churches and myriad monuments which link people to their history and culture. Of course, the killing of the people by bombs is far more tragic and truly just horrendous, but destroying ‘things as if they were in a museum’ is nearly as bad because it destroys their mental and emotional attachment to a life in their very country. I think this is one of the bases of what we call Nationalism and I defend it.
Alexandra O, your attitude is great, and I hope a lot of people will share it.
Your comment strikes me as extremely naive and ahistorical. Going on the kind of conquests that empires did in the past is not viable or realistic in the age of the nuclear bomb.
This is a gross mischaracterization of Hitler, Napoleon, and by extention the Russian leaders such as Alexander, Stalin and Putin, and going back further, even Caesar. At the base of their intentions none of them meant to create an empire. They did what they did – defeat enemy nations and bring them under their control as vassals – to protect their nation states, its interests and its peoples. Their nationalism led to empire. Whether they did so for France, for Germany, for Russia or Rome, their military exploits were for two purposes: personal glory but FIRST AND FOREMOST the good of the Land, the Nation, the Ethnos which they served and were a part of. All of them felt at one point or another ganged-up on, all of them saw a sea of enemies and “existential threats” to their continued existence. The only response, now and forever, will be to bite back against these conspiring forces, as did Napoleon, as did Hitler, as did Caesar and Stalin and Putin. As will ANY future ethno-nationalist state which will see itself threatened. Do I therefore support empire? No. Empire leads to overreach, and as the old adage goes: “To invade the world is to invite the world” – the weakening of the nation via the weakening of the ethnos. Colonialism is the most egregious form of empire: expansionism, an appropriation of land out of sheer material and economic interest, rather than self-protection. The obvious solution? Prevent naturalization and inclusion of conquered peoples at all cost, and maintain old borders between the ethnostate and its vassals. Empire and ethnostate are not mutually exclusive, unlike ethnostate and colonialism.
Wow! Food for thought!
Greg says: “Russia is a far more dangerous threat to white survival than the West, because Russia is just as committed to ethnocide as the West,…” Greg, can you offer any proof that the Russian government wants to destroy the white people of Russia?
They jail Russian nationalists who object to ethnic displacement through immigration and higher birthrates among indigenous non-Russian minorities. They promote multiculturalism and denigrate ethnic nationalism as “Nazism.” They use the holocaust as a tool for stigmatizing the ethnic nationalism of whites.
You make good points.
I am Russian, I live in Russia. Completely agree with Greg. Nationalist sentiments are very popular in Russia, but this does not affect politics in any way, since nationalist movements and parties are prohibited. In Russia, the borders with Asian countries are completely open (there is no visa regime), in which the demographic rise, in addition, in Russia there is the Caucasus – a predominantly Muslim region from which ethnic Russians were expelled. Added to this is the lack of free media, repercussions. The situation is extremely dire.
The obsession over jews must stop. They are involved with many things but certainly not everything. It will hurt our course if we start everything with jews.
Russia today is the like the Roman Empire. Primarily a state, an administration, a machine which is destroying not only the many ethnic groups which it has conquered but also, through amalgamtion, the core nation which have built the empire, the Russians.
I agree completely with Greg’s take, this is nationalistm versus imperialism. For the Ukrainians it is a struggle to survie, to avoid being sucked and dissolved in the empire. NATO, liberalism, the West, Jews, whatever are useful allies for the Ukrainians.
I want to touch on a minor point made in the article, it mentioned that they bonded over black metal. Metal is popular in Eastern Europe and Russia. Some American metal bands, that were big at one time are popular in Eastern Europe and Russia, at least popular enough to still tour there. W.A.S.P. is metal that was big in the U.S. at one time. They are big in Russia. They have just cancelled the Russian leg of there tour. I’m not trying to get anyone into their music. If you get a chance, however, get on the bands website and read the lead singers statement. Also, read the response from some of the Russian fans in the comments section.
Great article, Greg. But isn’t it wrong to refer to Donbass as an “ethnically Russian zone”? Ukrainians made up the majority in these regions before the takeover.
According to a 2001 census, in Donetsk oblast the Ukrainian ethnicity was 59.9% of the population and the Russian 38,2%. And in Lugansk there was 58.0% Ukrainians and 39.1% Russians.
You are right, so I have changed the sentence in question to reflect the fact that this zone has a large Russian minority.
“If you are fine with this because you think that Putin is conservative, Christian, reactionary, or illiberal, then you are not a nationalist who puts the preservation of our race and its distinct peoples above all else. Please come clean about this. Then let’s shake hands and part ways here.”
Being pro-White and putting the genetic group interests of our race first is one thing. Being an ethnic nationalist is something else. You can have only one top priority. Which is it?
You have done good work speaking up for the group interests of Whites as a race, and condemning White genocide.
Don’t lose your way.
White Nationalism and ethnic nationalism are the same thing as I define it, because there are no generic white people. White people have ethnicities, and ethnicities need ethnostates.
The genetic group interests of Whites as a race are different from the nationalist interests of each particular state in scorning, hating, and harming their White neighbors.
Each state, when inspired by the pitiless dogmas and the atmospherics of romantic nationalism, is inclined to pursue beggar-thy-neighbor policies and foment hatred among White ethnic groups, which leads to the ruin of us all.
Each nationalist White state wants an “edge” against its White neighbors. Each White state has incentives to bid to be the most favored by the Jews. Jews win. Whites lose.
That is different from our common interests, which are in peace, brotherhood, and the exclusion of Jews who stir us up against each other.
When the common interests of the White race are defined to be identical to the fratricidal interests of nationalism, the common interests of the White race are being wrongly defined, and the definition should be changed.
I obviously don’t advocate white states hating and harming one another: nationalism for me but not for thee. I support the good kind of nationalism, which is a universal form of nationalism in which different nations respect the sovereignty of others as they would have others respect them.
No, they don’t.
Compare the fate of Irish and Welsh nationalism. Irish nationalists demanded their own state, separate from their racial and ethnic kin in the rest of the British Isles. Welsh nationalists, or at least the more effective of them, instead focused on promoting the Welsh language and culture.
The results speak for themselves. Welsh is the only Celtic language that is not considered endangered. The Irish got their ethnostate, or had it until the government decided to throw open the borders, but their language is effectively dead and the rest of their culture not far behind.
Not every ethnicity needs an ethnostate. Oftentimes they would be much better served by joining a single, unified state with racially akin brotherly peoples.
I make it very clear that the ethnostate should be considered a right, not an obligation.
The Irish people had every reason and right to their own country. If they destroyed their country through opening up to globalization, that’s hardly a lesson against nationalism. But it was, at least, their mistake to make.
Your comment is extremely well said, especially in its cogency. Yours is my position (though I would have expressed myself with, alas, much greater verbosity). I would only add what I have stated in previous comments at CC, that we do not want the West to push Putin’s “back to the wall” such that he would use tactical nukes in Ukraine – nor, as an American, do I obviously wish my country to do anything that might unleash ICBMs between Russia and the US. That would be far more damaging to global white interests than a Russian victory in Ukraine.
I support Ukrainian ethnonationalism (and eventual ethnostatism) as a matter of justice and natural law, because only ethnonationalism (and especially racial separatism) is in full accord with evolved human psychology, not to mention with the imperative of white preservation (and even, I would argue more controversially, with the defense of liberty – an historical achievement to which I am highly attached, and which is gravely threatened by ‘diversity’, and this both praxeologically – diversity creates social tensions which empower, at the expense of individual liberty, the central states who ultimately mediate them – and very much pragmatically in the West today, insofar as most nonwhites vote socialist, or otherwise against the Anglo-American {true} conception of liberty).
Together, ‘diversity’ (the reality) and Diversity (the ideology, perhaps evolved or evolving into a neopagan cult) obviously constitute the main threats to both white perpetuity and Western civilizational continuity. European ethnonationalisms help counter the homogenizing and replacist ideology of Diversity; ie, they defend real diversity against Diversity, which is nothing more than rhetorical cover for white race replacement, and eventual subjugation and extinction.
But for any racialist (white nationalist), European ethnonationalisms must always be subordinated to the greater good of racial nationalism. Generally, the one helps the other, but this is not necessarily always so. The goal of Ukrainian nationalism is to preserve the Ukrainian people (in this case, from Russian domination) above all else. That is far from the highest goal of a WN, however, in the current war. We wish to minimize white deaths and suffering, and lasting intra-racial hatreds. Ukrainian ethnonational self-determination is certainly not something we oppose in principle, but it is also not our lodestar.
My comment was meant to be in reply to “Dissident Millennial” and his Comment #3. Not sure why it has appeared as a stand alone comment.
This essay by Dr. Johnson was very logical, well-presented and persuasive. I am more sympathetic to Ukraine than I had been previously. But I still think the US should stay out of the conflict except to provide humanitarian assistance to displaced whites (whether ethnic Ukrainians, Russians, or others). The more NATO involves itself, the greater the chance of provoking an attack by Putin against a NATO country, which in turn would trigger American military involvement, which could lead to massive destruction and death on the European continent, possibly including the use of nukes. Keeping the Donbass out of Russian hands is not worth those risks.
As a Ukrainian I am so impressed by how knowledgeable about this topic You, Greg, are. This article and Your previous ones are very truthful and close to reality as it stands. Just forget about the whole army of paid Russian apologists/trolls/shills trying to convince you otherwise – believe me You are on a right track, there is a reason why almost all other Eastern European nations share Ukrainian position and not a Russian one. Russia is neither a friend nor an ally for the White Cause.
Counter-Currents? With regard to Ukraine, Counter-Productive is more accurate.
Whatever this war started out being, it is increasingly looking like it has paused or reversed or maybe even ended globalism. Similarly, the longer the conflict goes on, the more likely it produces a breaking of the financial power of anti-whites across the West, especially in Europe.
If the gangster cliques in the West get their noses bloodied bad enough in Ukraine, we may see the collapse of at least some of the anti-white regimes, and an opening for pro-white forces.
The fact that the entire American political class has jumped into the pro-Ukraine camp with booth feet is reason enough to root for the other side, if for no other reason than to undermine them.
One of the greatest drivers of regime change throughout history is losing a war. If the purpose of CC is to work to change anti-white regimes, it is hard to see how backing Zelensky congrues with that aim.
This is one of those instances where ethno-monomania, high IQ, verbal facility, and an inability to avoid dramatic infighting combine to produce a stunningly bad position that will be argued unto the ground.
Right now the only two countries in this war are Russia and Ukraine. The United States and NATO aren’t belligerents. Therefore, no matter what the outcome, they aren’t going to lose a war. So the idea that there will be regime change in the West if Ukraine is destroyed is ludicrous. Was there regime change in the West because of the Afghanistan debacle, which really was a loss for the United States?
If Russia is defeated, however, there could be regime change there.
Eliminate the wishful thinking that this is really a war against America, and that defeating Ukraine is a defeat for America, and what you are left with is a very risky proposition for Putin’s fans.
NATO has begun to arm the Ukrainians and the Ukrainians have relied on NATO satellites from the beginning to make aim their strikes. So NATO and US are already in the War in a very real sense. We can only hope that sanity prevails and that they accept their defeat and accept Ukraine as being in the Russian sphere of influence.
Zelensky had already begun to flood the country with Black Africans and Muslim “students”. Russia will save them from this terrible fate.
No, Zelensky has not “begun to flood the country with Black Africans and Muslim ‘students,'” (note the word “flooded” which is verbatim Russia shilling from 2014). These foreigners were being brought to Ukraine under the Soviets as foreign students. It was Soviet imperial statecraft at work. And even with these people, Ukraine is still one of the whitest nations in Europe.
“Right now the only two countries in this war are Russia and Ukraine. The United States and NATO aren’t belligerents.”
Well, US&Allies is part of the conflict by supporting and arming Ukraine.
Yes it is a rule of the game to be allowed to do so, as USSR did by supporting and sending modern weapons to Vietnam, or as US did by arming the Taliban during the Soviet-Afghan war. Yet if the war continues to go badly for Russia (a defeat in the incoming Donabss battle) I see Putin capable of breaking the rule and strike the West in order to escalate….There is a great danger in this conflict, the danger of escalation (drawing US/NATO into the conflict) and eventually nuclear escalation…. In this sense this war is more similar to the Cuban missile-crisis than to Vietnam and Afghan wars because Ukraine is a country bordering Russia and not a far away country where great power fight proxy wars by employing local ethnic-nationalist movements. It is a dangerous moment.
People keep using the Cuban Missile Crisis as an analogy to Putin’s reaction to a NATO Ukraine. Of course, Cuba remained a sovereign, hostile nation when the crisis was over. Could this be Putin’s Bay of Pigs?
“Could this be Putin’s Bay of Pigs?”
It is. Not only the similar military disaster of the assault on Kiev but also politically. This war is the divorce, the assertion of independence and separation, of the Ukrainians from the Russians. No longer the ‘smaller brother’ ‘small Russians’ etc…Putin has already lost what was most important, the only thing left is to take as much as he can from Ukraine (maybe only the parts of the South-East as now, ideally also Harkiv and all the South up to Odessa if possible) and let the rest go freely…TOn the other hand, the Ukrainians had to fight this war regardeless of the outcome. They can’t lose politically while in the other hand not-fighting would have meant they giving up to their national aspiration and accepting being swallowed by the “Russky Mir”…. For Russia it is a disaster anyway it ends now. Putin’s apparently foolish, suicidal, direct attack on Kiev betting it all on intimidation was a well motivated gamble. It did not work, Putin lost the gamble, but it was well worth taking the risk from his point of view.
Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky declared Tuesday that, when the war is finally over, Ukraine would emerge from the rubble a “big Israel.”
This is what’s really at stake in Ukraine.
It’s a cause pro-Whites should not support.
What did he mean by “a big Israel”?
A country full of Jews?
No, he means a nationalist state that is militarized and always ready for war. I would say “a big Sparta.” But I get why Zelensky thought of Israel. Israel and Armenia are the closest states to ancient Sparta in the world today.
Exactly! And we are being encouraged to ignore the elephant in the room.
“Ukraine will definitely not be what we wanted it to be from the beginning. It is impossible. Absolutely liberal, European – it will not be like that. It [Ukraine] will definitely come from the strength of every house, every building, every person,” Zelenskyy told members of the Ukrainian media during a briefing.
“We will become a ‘big Israel’ with its own face. We will not be surprised if we have representatives of the Armed Forces or the National Guard in cinemas, supermarkets, and people with weapons. I am confident that the question of security will be the issue number one for the next 10 years. I am sure of it.”
However, such measures would not serve to undercut Ukrainian democracy, he added, declaring that “an authoritarian state is impossible in Ukraine.”
“An authoritarian state would lose to Russia. People know what they are fighting for,” he said.
Greg has the accurate summary of this statement, not Joe Gould.
However, it IS disturbing that stupid-Putins act of war has already and will continue to provide Jews more opportunities to get claws into Ukraine — but Putin was created by and still serves the Jew so whaddya expect?
On the other-hand though it has also and will continue to provide good white men the need and opportunity to fight like warriors for the family, folk, and land.
And the awakening of the white warrior spirit is always risky business for our enemies.
“On the other-hand though it has also and will continue to provide good white men the need and opportunity to fight like warriors for the family, folk, and land.”
No amount of sympathy for Ukrainians (or in my case for Russians) should distract us from the big picture. The prime interest of our race is peace, above all peace within our race. Brother wars are bad. When we are killing each other we’re losing.
I agree. No more brother wars.
If I had a magic button to push it would make that war stop, right… this… second!
I thought it was simple to see that Jew-pet, Anti-white, Anti-nationalist,
Nuke waving, looter Oligarch Putin’s war of choice to exterminate Ukraine
and its folk was bad for our folk.
Over the past weeks I learned under the Russian tank-treads of blood-thirsty
hyper-partisan supposedly nationalist fan-boys of russian aggression that
I was very wrong, lol. Of course I blasted them all with Ukrainina ATGMS of
reason and Bayraktars of Morality but that only made them apoplectically
bloodthirsty not only for Ukrainian but also my blood — they are very
invested in this Russian war and Propaganda.
(They did promote me from humble white working man national socialist
to high paid jewish hasbara officer gladio cia mossad high end talmudic
propagandist / scholar though — in their minds I guess they couldn’t
believe a humble pro-white working nationalist could disagree with them)
So it was pretty tiring for me and them both, but I want to say a few things
in support of Greg who has the insight and courage to go against the strange
undercurrent of toxic Russian kool-aid flowing under the surface of the
alt/white/racial right.
1. Putin is jew-serving, anti-white, anti-nationalist, corrupt looter
of his own people. He is not Vladdy your Daddy and he is not doing
anything good for you. He is destroying Ukraine, the future of Russia,
and enhancing the power of Jew’s who rule you.
2. There really is something wrong with Russia, with Russians. Maybe it
started with subjugation under the Tsars, or rather the way the Tsar’s
let the Jews corrupt and tax farm them. Surely they were brutalized
under the murder and terror of the Jew-SSR. And all that robbing and
raping and murdering and denying and lying about it all — all that
holy-hoaxing (and holodomor denying), and building their national myth
on all this sewerage-jewerage — I think they are really hosed — how
can they ever cleanse their souls and rejoin the white race and return
with us to the upward path if they never face and cleanse all their evils?
3. Blah blah security interests, blah blah more excuses for criminal
behavior.
Vladdy not your Daddy coulda “had a v-8”, he could have come clean, opened
the files, put the coup-de-grace on the HolyHoax, acknowledged, apologized,
and began to atone for the crimes against humanity, and especially against
White European humanity, and proclaimed the dawn of the Juden-Rein, pro-white
national Socialist future of the world! A new dawn for Russia and Russians.
Ridiculous?
Compared to what?
He could have knocked world Jewry on its ass, completely upset the
rotten apple-carts of power, and connected with all good white and non-white
folk even, with truth and honor instead of more endless raping-Russian nuke-
waving threats and bullshit.
Instead he has (and continues), to murder a lot of white people, destroy
the future of his own people, and strengthen the power of global jewish
power.
(While Russian soldiers – thought to be high quality and professional,
abject fail at soldiering but do lots of looting, raping and murdering).
His one amazing accomplishment in all this stupidity was to make a pervert
Jew mediocrity, installed as the puppet ruler of Ukraine, look like a man,
like a hero (at least on TV). Why Vlad why? Why are you so toxically
estupido?
La Putina is an Idiota, and his followers idiot sheep.
Desperate bloodthirsty sheep who have bought themselves a share
in the moral responsibility for the war-crimes of the Russian “soldiers”,
and the crime against white folk (and for the Jew-enemy), that is
Vlad-Dad’s war in itself.
Conclusions?
Mine are thus:
A) We have to stop lying, anybody who lies about history, or accepts the lies
of history is aiding and abetting our enemy, the people of the lie.
Jews are good at lying, they live and breath it. White folk, some, can
maybe do it even better, as a peak effort at great personal cost, but then
they have to get back to what comes naturally to our folk: Truth.
Truth hurts sometimes, it could even destroy national mythologyies (diseased
ones like the Russians thus freeing them for better things once recovered
from the blow). Truth hurts but, for white people anyway, Lies kill — Truth is necessary.
B) Until a white national socialist state, by, for, and loyal to our folk
arises and takes power, we are on our own and must take care of ourselves
and our own, trusting no compromised power (though influencing the
better of them when we can). BUT, accept no substitutes — we will have
a pro-white national social state by for and loyal to our folk — any
thing short of that is a stepping stone and will be stepped on!
C) Purely intellectual approach is dangerous. You have to go out and do.
Those who say the Ukrainians should be all killed, or that it is sad
(I think they are not sad at all, but anyway), …sad but necessary
that hundreds of millions of western people must die under Russian nukes
to stop Western leaders from oppressing Good Good Russia — those who
have thought their way to that conclusion are mad. Really they are.
They should go to Ukraine, or the Russian Occupied zone if they prefer and work doing first aid, or trying to feed people, or keep them warm, or something else real!
D) Could these Jews and their Shabbos and Jew-pets like Putin really
send the nukes? Are they really that stupid and evil?
I used to think that was very unlikely, but now… maybe? ??
Along with all the other hell they’ve set us up to suffer, we have
to take nuke war seriously now too I guess.
Optimism?
Yes.
If we stick to our folk, and to truth, and balance our thinking with lots of
wise doing, we will win the 14 words.
Preferably in a world that wasn’t destroyed, but even in the worst case…
Some, enough, will survive the worst they can do — let’s make sure
enough of those survivors are our folk, us, aware and ready to make hay
when the sun shines again.
Either way,
Hail Victory!
I’ve known a few Russians and Ukrainians over the years. All of them based, even by our standards. They also hate Putin and this war, which is lose-lose from their point of view. But hey, some American without a passport has a nuanced take, so go with that.
I certainly support Ukraine defending itself against Russia at all costs. I don’t like how their president seems to harangue us 24/7 about giving him this or that war making machinery. They have been living next door to Russia all this time knowing that some day they would come calling. I don’t appreciate being cowed into sending my tax dollars and our weapons that haven’t been paid for upfront. Ukraine could have built up their defense far more than they have and not required constant assistance. That’s my only beef. I want them to succeed so they can join the western world if they desire or preserve their heritage.
Mr Johnson, you are the first among all the so-called white western ethnonationalists who appears to have gained an insight behind the curtain of propaganda from both sides of this existential struggle. The conflict, the hatred and animosity is centuries old and it is engendered by imperial traditions whose roots are in Mongolia, not Europe. NATO and the EU are just the most recent entities that a perpetually weaker Ukrainian nation looks to for help against absorption by the Empire. In the past it looked to Germany (both Nazi and Wilhelmite), Sweden, Poland, Turkey – whoever might but usually failed, to provide help. Just as NATO is failing Ukraine now.
There have been years of debate on whether Russia is European or Asian. Your article is a fair summary of the answers to this question.
Maybe your time spent in Ukraine meeting and discussing with nationalists there has provided you with that deeper understanding that is so lacking among the readers of many “conservative” websites.
It has been depressing reading the cheer with which many, particularly American, right wing nationalists praise Putin and his war of destruction of Ukraine. The Right fears and rails against white population replacement, whilst toasting the medieval level pillaging of one of the world’s largest remaining white nations. I’m ashamed to call myself a conservative after the superficial ignorant nonsense I have been reading on right wing websites recently.
Your article has (partially) restored some faith in my beliefs.
Following this conflict is as confusing as Oliver Stone’s JFK!!! Anyone with investments might be interested on Martin Armstrong’s take on the conflict, aptly titled, Why the West needs WWIII https://usawatchdog.com/the-west-needs-wwiii-martin-armstrong/
There are things here that are blown out of proportion. For example, only 4 territories in Russia have above replacement fertility rates:
Nenets — population 44,000
Chechens — 1,400,000
Altai — 220,000
Tuva — 320,000
(These population numbers include a large number of ethnic Russians and other whites.)
I assume with increasing modernization their fertility rates are already falling, and will go below 2.1 in one or two generations.
Total population of Russia: 145,000,000
The Chechens are very insular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKZzaUPnefI (The youtuber is typical Russian mystery meat, probably a mixture of Russian, Udmurt, and Tatar.)
Fun fact: There are Chechens who fight on the Ukrainian side.
As for the rest of Russia, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between a 1.6 and 1.7 fertility rate. Russia is and in the foreseeable future will be a predominantly white country — which cannot be said about many Western European and some rapidly Gypsifying Eastern European countries.
We don’t have to like Russia or approve its attack on Ukraine, but we can’t afford to detach ourselves from reality.
One of the “Old Bolsheviks”, Armenian Anastas Mikoyan supposedly said: “I am not a Russian. Stalin is not a Russian.” sharing a toast with “To hell with all these Russians!”
Peter I, known as the Great, has openly called Russians “half-animals”,who have yet to be turned into humans.
I would note one interesting fact. In many towns, occupied by the Russian Army, the new administrations renew or erect new LENIN Monuments. Not any old Russian Tsars like Peter I or Nicolaus II, not Russian scientists, generals, doctors, writers or artists, but Lenin. Could anybody see those Russian offensive as “rightist” or “defending the White Race”?
On the site inconvenienthistory.com there is an article by Thomas Dalton The Jewish Hand in World War Three and while there are some sound points in it, the whole tendence, I think, is wrong. To look for Jews under every bed cannot bring positive results, particularly when the Jewish (and Armenian influence) in Russian establishment (Armenians particularly in the propaganda) is enormous, and much more powerful than in Ukraine, where, yes, an absolutely assimiliated and unreligious Jew is the President.
For me that war is much like Türkish War of Independence (Istiklal Harbi) of 1920´s, when Mustafa Kemal Pasha, future Atatürk, has saved National Türkey of the Greek/Antanta occupation. The Ukrainian war is an Anti-Imperialist war of national liberation and national defence. And the Jewish Question is in that context not much relevant.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment