Counter-Currents
2,256 words
Tucker Carlson’s interview of Vladimir Putin illustrates a number of points. Its first approximately 30 minutes consisted of an extensive history lesson going back to Novgorod, up through the Second World War and ending in the present day. It was a tad excessive even for my tastes as a history buff and connoisseur of strategy PC games.
Putin spoke articulately, at great length, and in depth about history. This highlights how we in the West are almost exclusively ruled by uncultured imbeciles. This is because democracy, and especially liberal democracy, tends to select for bad leaders. Aside from the way in which money selects leaders who will be obedient slaves to the financial class and essentially act as middlemen between the masses and big finance, democracy also selects for leaders who appeal to the masses, and thus via the inverse of quality and quantity we find today, tend to be rather dumb.
This may sound misanthropic, but it is a danger which cannot be politely danced around. Politicians who are relatable to the Common Man — i.e., dumb — have more appeal despite the fact that one should vote for someone who will be the most effective leader, not for the one who would make a good friend. Smart psychopaths such as the two Bushes could pull this off, or even worse Lyndon B. Johnson, who behind his hokey bleeding-heart façade was a warmongering savage and proponent of the nascent anti-white civil rights regime. But the best impersonator of the idiotic Common Man is sometimes just that: an actual idiot, such as John Fetterman, who is literally mentally impaired.
For all their conniving, the people in big finance who almost exclusively select the leaders in Our Democracy™ aren’t any more sophisticated than the midwit middlemen they select to be politicians. They can’t buy quality any more than they can buy honor.
While Russia is technically a democracy, it is illiberal, and thus it has authority and responsibility, which tends to select competent leaders — or at least less incompetent ones, when compared to those of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy will almost exclusively select leaders who are evil, dumb, and shallow. The exceptions, such as John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump, prove the general rule because the Deep State assassinated JFK, character-assassinated Nixon, and deposed Trump in a color revolution.
You can buy Jonathan Bowden’s collection The Cultured Thug here.
Because liberal democracy almost exclusively selects for bad leaders, almost any other form of government will have better leaders who will out-compete or even run circles around liberal democracies. Illiberal leaders need not be particularly spectacular to succeed. This is because the bar is so low compared to their liberal competition, and in a competitive environment like international relations, relative quality matters more than absolute quality
Liberal democracy has gotten away with much because its only competition after conspiring to conquer Europe with the Soviet Union in the Second World War was the Communism that it had propped up. The USSR collapsed first because they managed to be more retarded, theoretical, and selective of midwit “yes men” than liberal democracy (an amazing feat indeed), and because America was propped up by unsustainable debt spending and kept the worst of its liberal impulses in check, even if this was oftentimes hypocritical. The relative, rather than absolute, nature of international affairs can allow one to get away with a lot.
But after the fall of the USSR, Russia ditched its glorious five-year plans for hard facts. Meanwhile, the liberal West, no longer feeling that it had any competition and had entered a post-historical world, dove head first into indulging theories over facts, especially when it came to racial equality. The previously bottled-up liberal impulses were unleashed, and in fact “wokeism” could be defined simply as liberalism devoid of hypocrisy and finally practicing what it preaches.
So, comrades, should we praise Putin for charging at a white polar bear to save us from our liberal overlords? No, for several reasons.
One of the other things which Putin’s lengthy historical discourse shows, aside from his intelligence and the boorishness of Western leaders in comparison, is that culture matters. The point of Putin’s history lesson was that Russia has a claim to Ukraine, and to place the current conflict in a broader historical context. Ukraine has indeed been a contested borderland between Russia and Europe.
But don’t the Ukrainians have a say in this, too? They certainly consider themselves a nation. While trying to justify the invasion of Ukraine, Putin ironically highlights a reason for Ukraine’s staunch resistance. Ukraine does not want to be part of the big “family” of the Russian Empire that Putin talks about. Ukraine wants to be European — no, not the decadent modern Europe and Western world, but Europe in its proper historical sense.
This fight at its objective core is about blood and soil, culture and history. In other words, nationalism.
If Putin had cast the conflict in nationalistic terms, it would have been a lot more relatable to the average Republican than a long historical discourse, talk of multicultural Russian imperialism, or switching to the Chinese yuan for international transactions. Why didn’t he?
Part of this might be because he didn’t want to lend credence to the claim that the interview was Kremlin propaganda. This is buttressed by the fact that he didn’t go for the jugular on a lot of other matters, such as the West’s anarcho-tyranny or inflation. Putin even remarked that the United States’ gross domestic product is growing, although he also said that Russia’s is as well. By mostly avoiding what could be called propaganda, Putin did in effect make the Left’s hysteria about the interview seem even more absurd.
But another, even more plausible explanation is that Russia and the West are fundamentally alien cultures. Despite the fall of the Iron Curtain and the rise of global interconnectivity, we still have difficulty understanding each other because we are just as fundamentally alien as when Spengler wrote The Hour of Decision in 1934 — or indeed, at the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. As an American, I know that Putin’s lengthy history lesson would go over most Western, and especially American, heads. What does Homer Simpson know or care about Novgorod?
This vast cultural gulf also seems to have led to Putin to refuse to release Evan Gershkovich, a 32-year-old journalist, despite Tucker imploring Putin to release him at the end of the interview. Putin was right about the objective facts when he stated that there has been no reciprocation and that the services can handle it. But he was oblivious to the subjective reality that Western culture tends to admire magnanimity as a sign of strength, and the subjective is what really matters. Putin could have partially whitewashed his persecution of political prisoners at home as well as the invasion of Ukraine by releasing Gershkovich. He could also have humiliated the West if he had pointed out the political prisoners that they are holding in their own countries, such as the January 6 prisoners. Despite his high intelligence, Putin still ended up committing this huge blunder, because our cultures are so different that even intelligent Russians and Westerners have trouble understanding each other.
Putin’s history lesson was followed by talk about Nazism, despite the fact that Putin blamed Poland for the Danzig crisis that sparked Germany’s subsequent invasion, and in turn the Second World War. When Tucker pointed out that Nazism had been defeated 80 years ago, Putin replied that Nazi ideas are still alive. This is the type of analysis I would expect from a boomer such as Alex Jones instead of a mastermind like Putin. Perhaps Putin was appealing to his own countrymen, who will also watch the interview, or to American boomers. But it’s even more likely that this is his sincere worldview, as an ex-KGB agent.
Since everyone on the Right is called a Nazi, especially on the dissident Right, Putin alienated a lot of potential supporters in the West. This is particularly the case in America, where many nationalists admire Putin in part because the regime which hates them is an enemy of Putin, and because the Russian bear is not at their doorstep. Putin’s attack on “Nazism” was extensive, thereby proving those who have been saying that he is not a friend of White Nationalism to be correct and disproving the claim that Putin’s anti-Nazism is superficial. Putin was undeniably sincere on this point.
Those on the dissident Right who adore Putin should understand that the man, through both his words and actions, has made it clear that he either does not want their support or takes their support for granted. He does not care about them one bit. Despite hysteria about Russian collusion, Putin would not actually want Trump in power, and the dissident Right even less. It is in Putin’s interests to play against an incompetent adversary who is weak but who doesn’t allow his nation to completely collapse, as that would cause international chaos. A resurgent nationalist West might be less prone to conflict with Russia, as we would be more statesmanlike, but our potential danger as a stronger adversary could not be discounted, either.
Returning to the fact that the underlying conflict is one of blood and soil, the Western establishment, much like Putin, has tried to cast this war as anything other than a nationalist conflict. The Left doomed Ukraine by portraying it as being about “democracy.” When MAGA hears democracy, they instinctively recoil in disgust, as they have come to rightfully associate that word with oligarchy, hypocrisy, anarcho-tyranny, and condescension. By associating the war in Ukraine with democracy, which MAGA finds repulsive, instead of nationalism, which they can relate to, the Left all but ensured that Republicans would become anti-Ukraine when they should be even more pro-Ukraine than the Left.
You can buy Francis Parker Yockey’s The Enemy of Europe here.
It doesn’t help that democracy’s misbegotten spawn, the military-industrial complex, is inefficient and corrupt, thus causing military aid to be overpriced and tardy. It turns out that deindustrializing the West in pursuit of liberalism and white genocide has had lethal consequences, and not just in opioid deaths. Republicans have a point when they ask what the final price tag of supporting Ukraine will be. Cringe-inducing Harry Potter references and threats of drafting America’s sons if Ukraine doesn’t receive more aid only serves to further alienate Republicans.
I have come to stringently oppose military aid to Ukraine at this point, as it will only encourage Zelensky to throw more of Ukraine’s best men into a bloodbath instead of cutting their losses and getting to work on preparing for the next war. Retaking all of the land they have lot to Russia has ceased to be feasible because of democracy’s gross incompetence — and even if it were to become feasible, the cost in healthy blood would be too steep.
People will fight, sacrifice, and die for the mystic forces felt in their blood, for history, and for tradition — what some would call fascism. Filling out ballots for the least bad candidate, watching the GDP go up, and self-indulgent degeneracy cannot inspire the outpouring of energy needed for any important national endeavor, let alone a war such as the defense of Ukraine. That both the Western establishment and Putin avoid these forces as if they are caustic chemicals and even go out of their way to forcefully disavow them despite their usefulness strongly suggests that the reasons for this merit further investigation.
Hot-Take: Putin wants westerners to feel like they live in an ahistorical abomination.
— Morgoth (@MorgothsReview) February 8, 2024
Morgoth remarked on X that “Putin wants westerners to feel like they live in an ahistorical abomination.” This is probably true, and yet the people most perturbed by the interview are the Leftists who have allowed this circumstance to come about in the first place. They are the ones who gutted American education so thoroughly that I learned more about history from playing video games than from formal education. Liberal democracy is incapable of reversing course and making Westerners feel pride in their history again because this would run contrary to its leveling nature, and also because if our people were to feel proud of their heritage again, they might come to reject the Great Replacement. This tendency to make people feel as if they live in an ahistorical abomination is but one reason why liberal democracy is doomed to destroy itself. Because it is a self-destructive ideology, we have no choice other than to reject it entirely so that it doesn’t drag us down with it.
The rest of the interview consisted mostly of talk of geopolitics and the world becoming multipolar, which will go over most Americans’ heads as much as medieval history does. Tucker did not play softball with Putin. Thus, despite the fact that Putin may be using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against the neoconservatives, Tucker is certainly not a “Russia shill.” While saying that it was the CIA which had destroyed the Nordstream pipeline, Putin even remarked that Tucker had applied to the CIA himself and been rejected – a clear jab.
Putin is not coming to save us, and democracy is weakening and will eventually destroy us. As such, we have no other option than to reject both Moscow’s imperialism and Washington’s liberal democracy, both of which Francis Parker Yockey correctly identified as hostile, extra-European forces. Call it what one will, but we desperately need another option based on nationalism, authority, responsibility, efficiency, and self-sufficiency.
For the West to survive, we may have to become the nationalists that Putin fears we are.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else 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. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
30 comments
Responsibility and self sufficiency alone rules out including 99% of blacks in any decent future society.
If Putin’s mind is encumbered by Soviet WW2 propaganda, then the author of this article is similarly encumbered by German WW2 propaganda (as was Yockey).
The idea that Russians aren’t “real” Europeans is absurd.
Russians are racially White, with an Indo-European language, Christian religion, ruled for a millennia by a dynasty with extensive marriage links to north-western Europe, and with a typically European high culture (classical music, literature, paintings etc.)
From a nationalist perspective, an ideal solution to the conflict would be the recognition of the annexation by Russia of the overwhelmingly ethnic-Russian border regions such as Donetsk. This annexation increases the percentage of ethnic Ukrainians in the Ukrainian state, and it also increases the percentage of ethnic Russians in the Russian state.
I don’t claim to read the author of this article’s mind, but I don’t think it’s encumbered by WWII German propaganda. Whether one likes it or not, Russia has been a Eurasian Empire for centuries. Nowhere during this article I sensed any hostility toward the Russians, and what you proposed, namely a piece settlement where Russia holds on to the Russian-speaking territories of Eastern Ukraine, was even suggested by the author. Nevertheless, Yockey and other Western thinkers such as Spengler only observed the fact that Europe ends at Ural mountains and Russia at its core is not European. Sure, most ethnic Russians are white, but Russian Empire is a non-European multi-ethnic entity. And nothing is wrong with that!
Russians are racially White,
Also we Northern Caucasians are white. Armenian, Georgians, Azeri and Anatolian Türks are white. Iranians and Afghanis and Tajiks and Özbeks are white. Arabs and Berbers are white. But despite of whiteness they (we) are Asians, and Maghrebian Arabs and Berbers are Africans.
with an Indo-European language,
Just like Bengalis.
Christian religion,
Orthodox religion (and Moscow Tsardom was finally christinized only in the second half of the 17th century) is just an imposed STATE religion, most Russians are Christians only twice a year, to the Christmas and to the Eastern. The Orthodox religion itself is of Levantine origin and has more common with the Islam, than with Roman Catholicism or Protestant Christianity.
ruled for a millennia by a dynasty with extensive marriage links to north-western Europe,
the Varyagians were invaders and oppressors who have sold thousands ancestors of Russians and Ukrainians to the Jewish Persian slave traders known as Rahdonytes, that’s why the word Slave/Sklave/Schiavo etc. in all major European language. They were foreign occupation and colonial administration. The later Romanoff dynasty were Germans, who despised their subjects, and the subjects hated “their” Emperors. Peter I, aka the Great, openly called Russians “half-animals”, and Alexander I 100 years later called them “aborigines”.
and with a typically European high culture (classical music, literature, paintings etc.)
Yes, there were many good Russian painters, writers and composers, but they all were schooled in the West or by the Westerners. And comparing to the whole population their number is small, because the Europeization was shallow and stayed only on the surface of the society.
Most important is, however, that the Russians of TODAY (and we speak about today, not about the 19th century) do not see themselves as Europeans. They despice Europeans and are hostile to them (which is well founded, because Europe has always been hostile to Russia), the word European itself is some kind of an insult, meaning the same as faggot.
WTF are you on about.
About Russians do not want anymore to be the cheap labour, suppliers of cheap minerals, not only of oil and gas, and also cheap cannon fodder for wars for foreign interests, for you, dear western “brothers”.
A Greek and a German in 500 BC would have both been undeniably white and European. They would also have had trouble understanding each other because of a huge difference in culture and thus prone to talking past each other. This cultural difference would have also heightened the risk of conflict between a hypothetical Greek city state which had a Germanic tribe on its borders. People in a borderland between the two may have preferred to be part of one culture over another.
Ethnic Russians are undeniably white, but I’m not sure how culturally European they are. At the very least, the Russian Federation/Empire is a separate culture. I’d ideally like the West to cooperate with Russia, but it takes two to tango and these sentiments are unrequited, in part due to geopolitics but also in part due to culture.
Moreover, a Greek and a Persian in 500 BC, and also in 300 BC were both white, were both linguistically Indo-Germans, but they do not consider themselves as friends and brothers. As one scholar (I cannot remember his name, but he was a Frenchman living in the South America) said, all Greek-Persian wars were Aryan civil wars.
“I’d ideally like the West to cooperate with Russia, but it takes two to tango and these sentiments are unrequited, in part due to geopolitics but also in part due to culture.”
I assume you mean unrequited by the West?
(Surkov — just when you thought he’d fallen out of a high window, he shows up.)
“Russians are racially White, with an Indo-European language, Christian religion, ruled for a millennia by a dynasty with extensive marriage links to north-western Europe, and with a typically European high culture (classical music, literature, paintings etc.)”
Russians are our brothers and their welfare is our concern.
They do not consider themselves as “your brothers”, and they do not want to be “your brothers.” Just let them alone.
Correct imo
Also Kok Bori is talking nonsense.
Everybody knows that the West has always used Russians, like another peoples of these territories, as suppliers of cheap raw materials and as cheap cannon fodder for the Western wars. The Russians fought for the British interests against the French during Napoleonic Wars, and twice against the Germans in the 20th century, and all those wars have not benefited Russians at all, however costed much blood.
Now they do not want that anymore, that’s why they do not want to be your “brothers”, they simply want to be left alone and to live on their own.
I agree about the necessity of nationalism.
Also, I was one of those people who knew next to nothing about Russia and Ukraine (and still don’t know much about their histories), so when I saw nationalist influencers cheerlead for Putin a year or so ago I assumed these influencers knew what they were doing and that there had to be a strong pro-white justification for doing so. It’s easy to just go along with what seems to be the correct take and to start strongly believing in it, even when one hasn’t thought much about an issue, especially when one’s thought leaders/influencers and peers seem so certain that it’s what “our side” should be doing. That’s why I’m grateful for nationalist voices and other pro-white people who were willing to say, “wait, hold up,” and go against the anti-Ukraine sentiment and question the Putin cheerleading that was taking place among people who were thought to be nationalists. Thuletide, Jared Howe and especially Greg Johnson (with his “Against Imperialism” and his arguments in the debate with Mark Collett) helped me understand the situation better from a nationalist, pro-white point of view (though I’m not sure how Thuletide and Howe describe their own views). And now Joel Davis, the moderator of that Johnson-Collett Russia debate, seems to have moved away from the Collett position on Russia, noting recently on Telegram that it’s hard to square a pro-white stance with a full endorsement of Putin and the ideology that’s driving him.
It’s enough to understand that Putin is not a Nationalist, he is simply an IMPERIALIST, an Imperialist of the old school, like in the 19th century, and there is a big difference between these both terms.
One of the better analyses of the Carlson-Putin discussion.
Much as I enjoyed Putin’s long historic narrative, I was dismayed by his convenient omission of the USSR’s invasions of Poland, Finland, Persia and its starvation of approximately 9 million Ukranians under Stalin. Also his obsession with “Nazi” and “de-Nazification.” A miscalculation on his part I’m afraid. I’ve studied enough 20th century history to know that German forces were welcomed as liberators in much of the USSR, something Putin conveniently overlooks.
Well, all that being said, it was a pleasure to see serious subjects discussed by serious, intelligent people. Putin is not only intelligent but has a dry, intelligent sense of humor as well. This man’s substance and depth are a pleasure to behold. Consider the difference between this man and our current leadership of a senile, ranting and raving fool with a drug and pornography addicted son, and a vice President whose only qualifications are she’s black enough to get the minority vote and dumb enough to appeal to nonwhite constituencies.
In reading dozens of comments on other conservative sites, the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. In one comment, a seemingly relieved American said it was amazing how he got more truth in a single interview with a purported enemy ruler than with our on US media or political leadership.
This interview is a good thing, not only because it gave people an example of well presented, thoughtful political discussion, but because the liberal and Globalist hysteria gave observers an ability to compare the calm rational discussion of Carlson and Putin and the shrieking of their detractors. The EU threats to “sanction” Tucker Carlson (whatever that means) did not do our enemies any favors either. By their hatred of free speech they’ve pulled the mask even lower on their faces and showed they’re no friends of free discourse or any other freedom.
Do you really think that Putin’s “historical” fairy-tales have something common with reality? I see here only some kind of an official propaganda narrative, imposed by colonialist administration of Russia, with doubtful interpretation of facts. It is much like the myths of Black Inventions or Black Queen Cleopatra, just in the another historical corner.
Mr. Zsutty wrote:
“Liberal democracy will almost exclusively select leaders who are evil, dumb, and shallow. The exceptions, such as John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump, prove the general rule because the Deep State assassinated JFK, character-assassinated Nixon, and deposed Trump in a color revolution.”
Why do White Nationalists keep repeating Liberal and Kosher Conservative stuff like this?
Was it Geraldo Rivera that convinced you with his shaky 1975 TV broadcast of the Zapruder film for the first time, along with Blacktivist Dick Gregory?
Saint Jack walked on water, so he must’ve been assassinated by the Deep State. When Hate (ignorant Rednecks) didn’t kill Kennedy, that is.
I’m no fan of LBJ either, but he was much more talented in Congressional wheeling and dealing and getting his former chief’s legislation passed than the suntanned Yankee playboy himself was.
Also, Lyndon was not any more of a “warmonger” than the rest of the Democratic Party establishment was prior to the 1972 Watergate break-in.
Or in other words, they favored proxy wars that were relatively safe from triggering WWIII but handsomely goosed up the military-industrial-complex contracts and Congressional support networks in most districts (though without obstinate career Generals like MacArthur and LeMay who believed that wars are bad but ought to at least be fought to win).
Gen. Westmoreland and Secretary McNamara instead believed that with superior cost accounting and unprecedented bomb tonnage, victory would be a given (whenever the time was ripe) to the technological power farthest from the Stone Age that could best mitigate attrition.
In the end, the Draft became too unpopular for an open-ended colonial campaign, and Johnson fell on the sword after the 1968 Tet Offensive and did not run for reelection. Apparently the Vietnamese Communists could consistently lose tactically and bear massive human costs but always come back for another fight. That is not the kind of Surge that plays well on TV.
Oh Johnny, where are Ye?
🙂
Kennedy has betrayed the Cubans, let the Brigade 2506 down, and it is enough to know about him.
But all Democrats since the middle of the 20st century have betrayed somebody.
Franklin Roosevelt has betrayed the Eastern Europe and gave them to Stalin.
Truman has betrayed the Chinese and gave them to Mao Zedong.
Kennedy has betrayed the Cubans and gave them to Casto Bros and Che Guevara.
Carter has betrayed Iran and Nicaragua and gave them to Khomeyni and Ortega respectively.
Obama has betrayed Ukraine in 2014 and Biden continues this now.
Of Republicans only Nixon can be blamed for Southern Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, but the history of betraying began before him.
It’s worse than that. JFK, who refused to support the invasion of Cuba, did support the deployment of US forces against white American southerners. IN connection with the integration of Ole MIss, he massed 30,000 troops…the same number as the Marines who landed on Iwo Jima in Feb. 1945.
Of course Eisenhower, a Republican President, led the way in the deployment of US troops against Americans, deploying the 101st Airborne to Little Rock Arkansas to use rifles with fixed bayonets to enforce the rights of Negros to sit next to captive white children in racially integrated class rooms.
Then there was the Reuther Memorandum, which called for the weaponization of the IRS an other Fed Gov agencies to silence then growing conservative, anti-communist media. JFK and RFK eagerly went along.
The American people have not been well served by any President since Herbert Hoover. who, at least, kept us out of war.
Hoover actually started many of the big Gov programs that FDR continued and expanded. Calvin Coolidge was much better.
to enforce the rights of Negros to sit next to captive white children in racially integrated class rooms.
As I always say I am just a dumb foreigner without deep knowledge of the American history, but I still never understood these actions and decisions of early 1960’s. I think it would be much more effective, humanistic and non-violent to IMROVE the life conditions of the black population, in the work places, in the schools, in social sphere, and on this way to get some kind of racial economical and social equality WITHOUT THE RACIAL MIXING. I really think a Negro child has rights to get better school education, but for this it is not necessarily needed to bring him/her in a white school, just simply to improve an already existing black school.
The problem is you can only do so much for them:
https://www.amren.com/news/2016/08/a-white-teacher-speaks-out/
JFK, who refused to support the invasion of Cuba
That was worse than this. If he simply refused and informed the Cubans about this in advance, then the Cubans would decide for themselves if they want to invade without the US air support or not. The problem is that Kennedy has PROMISED this support to them, and then has not given the order to the USAF and USN to fly. This is the worst betrayal.
Russians are definitely culturally and racially European. However they are a bit different from Western Europeans. At least partially because Russian culture is the result of a synthesis between the Slavic and Byzantine cultures. As opposed to Western Europe, who’s culture is the result of a synthesis between the Germanic and Latin cultures that occured during the Late Western Roman Empire and post-collapse.
Between the Slavic, Byzantine and Türkic (of Ulug Ulus, aka The Golden Horde) cultures, the latter had many elements of Eastern statehood traditions of Central Asia and China.
If people didn’t understand the bit where he said “Russian people think about morality more, Western people are more pragmatic” and the “golden billion” they need their heads testing: he was clearly saying we are all his enemy and he was obviously inciting the global south against us.
He can prattle on about history all he likes: the Ukrainians hate Russia and they rejected being under its influence. That’s not running cover for the machinations of Western governments, it’s just a statement of fact.
While I reject these Neocon adventures I am personally also nauseated by the Russian victim complex: how does a country get that big if it’s been so hard done by? They got all that territory through conquest and genocide and there are very good reasons why the Baltic states and the Eastern Europeans fear them. Putin at times came across as sulky and self-pitying. His comments about China’s strength will look quite funny in 12 months’ time as their property bubble implosion really gets out of hand. Ok he’s been plenty messed around by Western governments but people really need to take notice of the shift in his rhetoric. He is no longer saying “ordinary Western people are prisoners of a family-hating, child-castrating regime”.
The Dissident Right is extremely naive about Russia and where all this is heading and I think Counter Currents called it correctly when they said we need to stop hoping that someone is going to come and save us. It’s certainly not going to be Vlad the Lad.
All I want to know about Putin is why he is bombing the shit out of Ukraine, which was the third most poor country in Europe to begin with, and only women and babies are starving, along with the elderly and disabled, as well as marriages being torn apart as men die in a senseless battle over WHAT? — we still don’t really know!
I have a minor in Russian History and I can tell you, 1000 years of mean Tzars and their terrorism and trials don’t apply to this insanity of the past two years! This only ends in throwing millions more of innocents into more gulags in Siberia (most recently, Alexei Novaly, of cold and hunger, just yesterday!). What does Putin hope to gain — more oil? more wheat? more lovely white girls to jerk out of Ukraine to feather the beds of Russian men? Just a hint Putin -what the hell do you want!
to feather the beds of Russian men?
You surely mean, of Chechen men, for the starters.
I was referring to the low birth rate of ethnic white Russians, just the same as what is happening in most European countries and North America. But I imagine the Chechens get their share of Russian women who are widowed by the Ukraine war or otherwise single, impoverished and drifting.
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