Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 634
Brandon Martinez
Counter-Currents Radio
97 words / 1:59:11 
Brandon Martinez was Greg Johnson’s guest for this episode of Counter-Currents Radio. It is now available to download or listen to online.
Topics include:
1:06 – Introducing Brandon Martinez
5:17 – How Martinez’s thinking has evolved over the years
16:30 – On Nordic supremacists
26:45 – National Socialist incoherency regarding Slavs and Russia
37:55 – Russian influence in the Western right-wing sphere
1:05:40 – Question on Trump and Putin
1:20:34 – Greg Johnson on the importance of international law
1:23:00 – More listener questions
1:48:25 – Will Trump end the Ukraine-Russia war?
1:53:56 – Where to follow Brandon Martinez
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
46 comments
Two hours of missing the forest for the trees.
Lots of bitter seething and coping about why so many dissidents are susceptible to RUSSIAN INFLUENCE without ever asking why they might be interested in that in the first place. Why are foreign interests finding such fertile ground in the minds of dissidents? It’s all an op right? It’s all quid pro quo from virtueless trolls. There are no homegrown forces that are creating dissidents in the first place, of course. America #1. Ooh-rah.
Dr. Gregory Johnson goes so far as to call them treasonous, which really makes one ask, treasonous to WHAT? Could it be that their own country betrayed them first?
If we’ve been infiltrated by Russian influence, let’s first ask what then would define the American influence?
You two sound like the Democrats of the dissident right. Putin is ethnically cleansing eastern Europe with Russian-speaking Asiatics and Lukashenko is facilitating mass migration into Poland…as though NATO and the United States is a force for white nationalism in Ukraine and Europe. What an ugly absurdity.
Here is what happened – America’s geopolitical rivals are using America’s ridiculous ideological foolishness against it. The failed ideology the West is so beholden to has resulted in a rich environment of internal divisions to take advantage of. But here you are angry at Russia as though Russia created them.
I’m not interested in unravelling why people become cheerleaders for Putin’s anti-white war in Ukraine. I am simply calling them out if they also present themselves as White Nationalists, since there are obviously huge contradictions between the two positions. Professing White Nationalism and then cheering on an imperial war of aggression against a white state is a betrayal of the highest political philosophy for something unspeakably low and dirty.
It is disingenuous to say that Putin is “anti-white” unless you are simultaneously willing to say that Zelensky is “pro-white” and I don’t think you believe that.
The war is not being fought on white nationalist terms. It just isn’t. You are correct when you say the war is actually an imperial struggle. But just as you find the hypocrisy disgusting when white advocates cheering for a destructive war against white Ukrainians, I’m surprised you can’t see the similar hypocrisy in siding with the American imperium, which is probably the most anti-white force to ever exist and surely the most serious adversary to the survival of our people both in the Anglosphere and in Europe. You have to admit that even if Ukraine achieved victory, its existence would subsequently be under the terms set for it by the American empire, which is demonstrably and actively anti-white nationalist.
The true tragedy of this war is precisely in the fact that there is no pro-white side. And this is what happens when you allow your enemies to set the framing in which conflicts will take place.
Putin is invading a white country and populating the occupied areas with non-whites. He paises multiculturalism and race mixing. He is presiding over the Great Replacement in Russia itself. Those are all reasons for calling him anti-white, without straying into your irrelevant whataboutism regarding Zelensky.
True enough what you say about Putin and his praise for multiculturalism. He’s not pro-White, that is for sure.
However, I can’t see anything wrong with Godly’s straying into “whataboutism regarding Zelensky.” It is not unrelated at all.
The idea that this is a contest between the US and Russia is just a Russian propaganda narrative. Odd that Europe and Ukraine are not taking orders from America like “vassals,” another bit or Russian propaganda. Your talking points are a bit stale given current events. I wonder what the Kremlin firmware updates will look like.
Well, I understand your confusion about what is American and what is Russian as it might seem to you that America defeated the Soviets in a proper way in 1990. The view from Germany is very different though. East German dissidents warned early on that the Stasi and KGB were not defeated and that it was a fake defeat to infiltrate us. Only a few years later most party leaders in Germany were East Germans and some had been Stasi for sure. Then Merkel came to power (an ex-Stasi, half jewish fake conservative) and ruined the country. I was not surprised to later find out Soviet leaders had spoken quite candidly about this tactic prior “defeat” and that the US was of course the main target. Now think about it, when did all the crazy stuff start that would either turn you woke, get you disinvested and blocked or drive you towards the right? And when did you first hear about a magical land in the east where all conservative dreams came true? Fact is, they played both sides, whipped up the leftist crazy stuff and presented themselves as an antidote. And here we are and the USA is defeated without a shot fired, gives up its empire just like that. I had not expected the US to ever let Germany go free within my lifetime, too strong the control mechanisms. And now the US pushes us away like a fired servant. Now, I am quite bullish for Europe and wager the Russians have miscalculated the outcomes, thinking Europe would just fold but I am also deeply mad at Russia and consider it a mortal enemy trying to recreate either tsarist russia or the soviet union no matter the cost. And you should too. Lots of nationalists rot in Russian prisons and the Kremlin openly talks about murdering all foreign nationalist, starting in Ukraine. Drop by Russian Media Monitor on YT and have a listen at prime time Russian state TV. Quite enlightening.
Is this NPR? Just more NS-bashing.
NS was “not for export.” It never claimed to be a pan-European philosophy. Setting it to a standard that it never aspired to is cross-eyed. NS champions volk-preservation by means of volk-serving action. The volk is the existence of blood-Germans on earth.
Slavs starving themselves to death under British-Fabian communism shows that the Slav is both too weak to throw off communism himself (that he needed German help) and that the real Slav-haters are those British-Americans who subsidized Stalin to achieve their genocide of Germany. Yet, “Muh-slavism” prevails.
Nothing Hitler did to Slavs equates to mass murder communism. No one has to respect the borders of a communist slave-state. Since the slave-state doesn’t respect the rights of its own people, why should anyone else? This is what Slavs who served Stalin were fighting for, the negation of regime-rights.
NS was evolving with the conditions at hand. No one knows the reality of a post-war German victory, but almost surely, it would have meant prosperity for the vast East, beyond what Stalin and his American “nephews” left behind.
What philosophy is pan-European? None. It will always have to take sides against this ethnic group or another. No philosophy can do that, unless you posit a common existential interest to generate a racial interest common to many ethnic groups, such as, an interest in Fortress Europe, an NS-concept Churchill-loathed. That means no British or Russian empires from the Pyrenees to the Urals, and from the Baltics to Basra. That would be a vast improvement over where Europe is today, after 80 years under white-British, white-American, white-Slav rule, and “looks white to me” Israeli-rule.
History shows that “white unity” is an eternal fantasy that has no historical precedent. Would you rather be under NS-German or Jewish rule? That is the real, practical, and cosmic choice everyone faces, one that reveals everyone’s character.
Basically you are selling the idea that Putin shills sell today: that if a people has a bad government they lose sovereignty and can be killed and dispossessed at will.
I am glad that NS types like you and Joel Davis and Sewell are being frank about the fact that NS is not any sort of pan-European White Nationalism but rather a German chauvinism that aimed to build a colonial empire in Europe at the expense of other Europeans.
This is historically more accurate than the people who try to paint NS as somehow pan-European, but it is indefensible morally and politically and useless to whites in our present state. Those who inaccurately present NS as pan-European White Nationalism at least recognize that such a philosophy is morally defensible and relevant to the plight of whites today.
Your claim that the real choice we face today is between NS Germany and Israel is pretty breathtaking, given that NS Germany ceased to exist nearly 80 years ago, years before Israel came into existence. So to say that this is what white people today must choose between seems completely nutty. But you seem to be living in the past, or a fantasy world.
I just listened to a few minutes of this, beginning with how Brandon’s viewpoints have evolved. At ~14 mins in, he mentions discrepancies between The Greatest Story Never Told and Mein Kampf.
“But, National Socialism is superfluous . . . completely irrelevant; white people could take their own side and take back their countries without ever even mentioning it.”
“‘White people take back their countries?’ Hah! I’m just here to rankle the Jews.”
Lots of straw-man arguments.
Apparently no gratitude that NS Germany and Fascist Italy helped Spain in their civil war with the Commies, to the disdain of the Allied powers who preferred Bolshevism in the Baltics and the Balkans and lots of other places.
Germany had long-standing cultural interests in the Baltics since Hanseatic times, and yet Hitler was willing to reduce Germany’s “imperial” footprint with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact until the Soviets brutally annexed such territories plus Moldava ─ which was hardly part of the agreement.
It was obvious that Uncle Joe could not be trusted and indeed Germany’s days were numbered. Other nation-states like Romania and Slovakia directly appealed to Germany for protection that would never have come from the Entente for obvious reasons. Finland and Hungary needed no convincing to fight with Germany in the Good War.
So, which is it, Hitler pushing for Lebensraum or for peace ─ when he already agreed that Germany desired to be competitive in trade, but that Germany owed moral support (at the very least) to ethnic Germans who were not part of the Reich in 1914.
This, for example, was millions of Germans, such as the Austrians who were directly prohibited from joining the Reich by the Treaty of Abominations.
Many here seem to think that Germany had a CHOICE to fight the Soviet Union or not, and that Hitler made the wrong choice. That is the view of the (((Victors))) for sure.
And more of the ecumenical Holocaust B.S. which really needs more work and leaks like a sieve. Plus, we learn that Doktor Goebbels was not a good German because he had brown eyes. Good grief.
As far as power, well I don’t see how that can be substituted at some basic level. We can have lots of duchies with all sorts of brands of folkdancers and choirs and Latin rites or 57 vernaculars or whatever, harmless cultural stuff for all manner of seasons and tastes ─ if our enemies allow it ─ but at the end of the day, it is either White Power or it is powerless LARPing.
If we don’t get the WP ─ for whatever reason ─ we are not ulltimately going to fare very well as a people, regardless of our skin hue. A membership in good standing with the Grand Fenwick opera is not going to get us closer to respectability let alone Imperium.
And endlessly pointing the crooked finger at Uncle Adolf and deifying the shop-worn enemy propaganda ad nauseam, is never going to get us any street cred or honorable mentions with our racial enemies in any case.
🙂
Hitler’s territorial ambitions from the start went well beyond bringing back severed German territories. That could have been legitimate on ethnonationalist grounds. But it does not change the fact that Hitler was not for what White Nationalists stand for today.
Hitler’s speech on annexing Bohemia and Moravia made it clear that he did not believe in the right of self-determination of peoples.
On another matter, we need a master list of thought-terminating Nazi tropes like:
1. People only criticize Hitler to curry favor with their enemies.
2. They’ll call you Nazis anyway, so you might as well become one.
As well as quick, one-line refutations.
Good War? Hitler betrayed half of Europe to Stalin in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. NS Germany was the only country to side with Stalin’s USSR against Finland in the consequent Winter War invasion. Germans pressured Finns to surrender to Soviet demands; Germany threatened Norway and Sweden to block transit of foreign aid in order to force Finnish capitulation to USSR…
NS Germans sounded remarkably like Putin shills today—conversations Sven Hedin had with both Hitler and Ribbentrop are quite remarkable:
“Stalin does not want war. His demands are natural and reasonable. They concern areas which were formerly Russian…the Finns should have accepted his proposals. Then they would have avoided all the war and destruction…
An understanding had been reached with Russia on the basis of a clear division of interest…as a result of the new relationship which Germany had established with Russia her sympathies were naturally also on the side of that country…
Stalin is no longer an international bolshevist but a Russian nationalist following the same natural policy of Russian nationalism as the Tsars…a shifting of the Finnish-Russian border at the Karelian isthmus was necessary for the safety of Leningrad…Stalin had asked nothing more of the Finns. It would have been wisest for the Finns to make an agreement with the Russians.”
—Adolf Hitler
4 March 1940
CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE FÜHRER AND SVEN HEDIN recorded on the German side in a Memorandum by an Official of the Foreign Minister’s Secretariat (Paul-Otto Schmidt)*, and recounted in Sven Hedin’s German Diary (p. 73-78) wherein Ribbentrop says the same (p. 63-72)
*Documents on German foreign policy, 1918-1945, from the archives of the German Foreign Ministry, ser. D (1937-1945) v. 8. (p. 862-864, No. 654)
I see it differently. Hitler hardly welcomed the Winter War.
Hitler betrayed nobody and was not obligated to fight for anyone else. None of the hotshots in the West would have lifted a finger if the Soviet invasion of Finland had succeeded. All they wanted was to see that Germany went back to its former status as a Versailles vassal, or a Wall Street economic colony.
Germany was in no position to fight the Soviets at the time and was not obligated to do so either, in spite of this being exactly what the Entente was hoping for. They always preferred to let others fight their battles.
Hitler attacked Stalin as soon as feasible, and you can’t have it both ways. Most historians try to argue that he jumped the gun or that it was unnecessary ─ that the Commies were rational actors and only wanted peace. I’m not one of those.
Hitler probably decided by late 1940 if not earlier after the brutal Soviet annexation of the Baltic states and the Winter War that a shooting campaign with Russia was never going to go away ─ and as long as this was a possibility, the Entente never would have accepted any kind of peace offer from Germany.
Churchill knew that Hitler did not have a Kriegsmarine even remotely powerful enough to support the invasion of Albion. On the other hand, the Soviets had the luxury of time, with the Entente and the Americans only getting more generous with inducements for bellicosity with Hitler. Roosevelt was sending Lend-Lease to the British and the Soviets long before Pearl Harbor.
In fact, the British destroyed the Vichy fleet just to send a message ─ killing over a thousand French sailors, that there would be no peace with Germany ─ and those who made a separate peace or armistice with Germany would be punished. Some aristocratic and politically naïve German generals mistakenly thought that they could negotiate with the Allies if only Hitler were dead.
In the event, German intelligence was not fooled as to Soviet intentions but underestimated the Soviet threat at the time of Barbarossa by a couple orders of magnitude ─ and Finland is very fortunate that the Soviets bungled their invasion so badly.
Hitler met with Finlad’s Field Marshal Mannerheim on his 75th birthday in 1942 and was hardly in any position to punish the Finns if they ever decided on a separate peace, which they ultimately did. Nobody begrudges that as a betrayal.
The Allies simply did not care if the Soviets invaded Poland or Finland. Full stop.
They might have been able to rein the Soviets in for the sake of Finland, but they gave little more than stale condemnations of “aggression,” all of it aimed against the Germans.
Short of declaring World War, this was about the same as with the Spanish Civil War ─ just not wanting to admit too loudly that a Soviet Spain and a balkanized or Sovietized continent was their preference.
Helping neutrals to feed themselves during the war was not a popular idea with the Allied governments either. Even non-governmental humanitarian efforts that were ultimately sent to France were slow in coming; originally these people were supposed to starve like everybody else.
And with bountiful American harvests available, Churchill refused to spare the shipping needed for colonial India, thus condemning three-million to death from the famine. Some extreme “Good War” apologists will blame this on Hitler too.
A Germany that was not under wraps was for the Allies considered an existential threat. None of the Western leaders felt that way about the Soviets under Stalin. Yet Hitler is the one who was supposedly bellicose and in the wrong.
Btw, Hitler and Stalin never met in person as Stalin almost never left his country. The only wartime exception that I can think of was the Teheran Conference in 1943, where the Allies broke bread and sipped the bubbly with Uncle Joe and began the process of carving up Europe.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has had the unintended consequences that neutral Sweden and Finland actually joined NATO. That has to be the worst diplomatic blunder for Russia so far, but it serves them right. Some neutral buffer states or “Finlands” are very useful for diplomatic purposes, but this should not be overstated either.
And even the dumb Germans ─ who scrapped their nuclear plants under Comradess Merkel ─ they are not now being allowed to buy cheap Russian natural gas. I suspect that Polish operatives had a hand in the Baltic pipeline sabotage, but who cares?
🙂
I’m not sure what defines NS, as a set of tenets. At least Mussolini clearly set out his view in The Doctrine of Fascism. I think of NS in particularist/historical terms as the political outlook held by the NSDAP in post-WW I and WW II Germany. If that’s true, then no one now can be an adherent of NS, except as an extinct ideology. (Nowhere did Davis define NS.) It doesn’t export from a certain historical period. It differs with communism in this respect. NS is historically bound while communism is not. If I’m wrong about this, I’d like to know why.
Well, my view is that ultimately Nationalist must boil down to “Nazi” because that is what the shorthand was in German pronunciation. Any other definition is problematical at best.
So what really defines “Nazi,” or National Socialist if you prefer?
Well, Hollywood has tried to do that for nearly a century and they have good reasons to discredit the idea in my opinion ─ continuing to spend billions and billions of dollars in propaganda.
I don’t think we can escape that legacy. Nor should we try to run away. The Roosevelt Brain Trust were far more insidious to White interests than Der Führer ever was, which aviator Charles Lindbergh understood, and why his America First Commitee legacy is viciously hated by the ruling regime to this day.
I have always rejected trying to turn Hitler into anything more than he was as a man, a Leader who like George Washington clearly had many flaws and made many mistakes. But that is hardly the point. Bismarck and Lincoln were not demigods either.
NS was the only socialism that utterly rejected Marxism. That is important to know and to understand. Spengler talked about “ethical socialism.” I am not against anyone who thinks that White Nationalism needs to evolve from the icky geopolitics and uneven baggage of the 20th century.
But let us not overstate the case either.
Why do we feel compelled so fundamentally to virtue-signal (((Hollywood))) and the 1940s Anglo-American order that could not decide itself whether they wanted the Iron Curtain “from Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic” or planted on the Rhine River itself? Who really “Lost” China?
These are the selfsame people (usually wealthy publishers like Henry Luce and Ivy League Libtards, many of them from good families) who refused to see the faults of Stalinism and were blind to continental Realpolitik until the Soviet atomic bomb and McCarthyism forced them to make a clean break with utopian establishment politics (including Christian missionary work). General and Madame Chiang were good Methodists after all ─ but Mao and Castro, they were just the Simon Bolivars and George Washingtons of their countries. The Red Scares at least changed that mentality.
“But surely, Real Bolshevism has never been tried.”
Tbere is a reason that the original Neoconservatives tended to be former Trotskyite Jews like Irving Kristol. Ashkenazi Jews (often atheists) tended to hate Russians, Poles, and Germans in that order ─ and of course to support Israel (or Zionism) by hook or by crook, or by any means necessary. This is pretty much key to understanding anything about modern politics and international relations. Even Stalin in his dotage grew suspicious of Jewish Refuseniks who seemed to be more Zionist than Communist, but that should not be overstated either. The Red Army and KGB were full of Jews as George Lincoln Rockwell often pointed out.
I don’t like Putin and particularly his war with Ukraine. I definitely don’t dislike Russians, nor did I ever pine for a World War III when I was donning gas masks and learning how to dig a slit trench. I have personally found Russians to be exceptional engineers and accomplished Cosmonauts, etc.
I am against the notion that Ukraine should be unconditionally supported in their war until the last Ukrainian is dead. European nations could do much more to step up to the plate in this matter, and they have more skin in the game than the United States. Trump is not perfect but he has the right idea in spite of Zelensky.
In any case, the worst thing that can be said of the World Wars is that they happened at all. There are no Good Wars. Nobody should be unequivocally beatified, and we must be reminded that “it takes two to tango.” All historians have to avoid the tendency to view the past exclusively though our own restrospective lenses.
I am against White activists dressing up like Chaplinesque caricatures or Cowboys hunting Injuns in Hollywood entertainment propaganda ─ but I believe that it is important to give credit where credit is due. My background is real History and not Philosophy, so maybe I am flawed in that way. I don’t claim to have all the answers.
Oh, and btw, the Canadian establishment claim from a few years ago that frontier boarding schools had mass-graves in the back for Genocided “First Nations” children turned out ─ in spite of Prime Minister Trudeau and Pope Francis’ apologies ─ upon actual forensic investigation to be more of the usual Marxist and anti-White lies. (LINK)
We don’t usually hear the Revisionist historical versions, however. That is not the story that they want to tell. In the Marxist mind, showers and haircuts are literally Genocide.
When I hear that word Genocide used, I take the safety catch off my metaphorical Browning. Some people literally believe that Hitler formed his worldviews by reading American Western novels like Karl May, who had never actually been West of the Pecos.
This is on par with the credibility of most of the Allied propaganda about the Good War ─ and it should be taken with a shaker of Kosher salt. Even as a child in the 1960s when I visited the Boot Hill pioneer cemetery at Tombstone, Arizona ─ where people from a famous gunfight are buried ─ I understood that you passed through the gift shop at the entrance. Fun Fact: The Tombstone pioneer cemetery even has a Jewish quarter.
Swastikas were actually part of Navajo artwork and Arizona state and military construction and symbolism until World War II, when we learned that it was Bad Medicine. (LINK)
🙂
Great interview, MArtinez is on point like always.
However, here is one argument that I almost never hear from the pro-Ukraine side, even though it is one of the easiest refutations to the Kremlin talking point about Russia being worried about Ukraine joining NATO. And that that Ukraine had no chance of joining NATO as long as they were involved in a conflict with Russia. That is, the conflict that started in 2014 and which had been essentially a frozen conflict before Russia’s full-scale invasion. If Russia was concerned about Ukraine joninig NATO, then they basically eliminated that possibility in 2014. There was no need for a full-scale invasion.
I have never heard any Russian shill refute this. They just skirt around the issue and pretend that NATO was just going to break their own rules and deliberately cause a direct conflict with Russia byu allowing Ukraine to join while they were still fighting Russian forces in the Donbas. Pure magical thinking.
To that I’d just say that the idea of NATO breaking its own rules isn’t so ridiculous as you seem to think.
That’s actually a very good point. NATO doesn’t take countries with ongoing conflicts. But NATO encroachment is just one of many throwaway pretexts for war that Moscow dispenses for gullible foreigners like Tucker Carlson.
Your original position, Greg, before the war broke out was for self determination of the eastern sections of Ukraine. You mentioned how yes, Ukraine was riddled with corruption and even Russia was less corrupt. If I recall, what changed your mind was Ukrainian nationalist and even Russian nationists friends believed war was inevitable. Well, the destruction has been incalculable but corruption probably will be as bad as ever, impeding rebuilding the country. The US is circling the carcass, looking for mineral concessions to cover recent military expenditures in the conflict..
1. Your original position looks better to me by the day. Avoiding heavy military engagement could also be useful for upcoming conflicts, whether in North America or Europe. Conflict resolution should be prioritized.
2. How can Ukraine be rebuilt? How can Ukraine avoid globalist business pressures to flood the country with immigrants? How will it pay for veterans’ pensions and widows and families of dead fighters?
Crimea and Eastern Ukraine voted for independence from the USSR. There is actually no evidence that any significant number of Russians in those places regretted that decision. Statements to the contrary were just more examples of fake Russian pretexts for war. Hence when Putin did a referendum after seizing Crimea, he simply stuffed the ballot boxes. Obviously self-determination meant nothing to him.
I don’t recall saying anything about corruption in the two countries, because I don’t think it is relevant for Ukraine’s self-defense or giving them aid.
The spectacle of a dying nation (Russia) fighting for more territory is beyond depressing. But once Russia invaded, the Ukrainians had to fight back.
Trump’s posturing deal-making on Ukraine is grotesque and morally repugnant. I hope Zelensky tells him to go to hell. Zelensky would do better to make a deal directly with Putin. But Putin doesn’t want peace.
Again, which side in this war– Russia, or NATO/EU/Ukraine– is run by elites who actively shill for the installation of activities like Drag Queen Story Hour and the like?
One side very much does, and the other side very much does not. The bad guys are the former. The good guys are the latter. Simple as.
Do you plan to kill people in America over drag queen story hour, Andy? Or are you just going to applaud on the internet as bombs rain down on Ukraine, because apparently you think those people deserve to die because of Western shitlibs taking their kids to drag queen story hour? Do you realize how insane you sound repeating this stupid meme?
Greg, Counter-Current’s take on Ukraine just happens to coincide with that of the neoliberal establishment in Washington DC and Brussels. Y’all and the CIA and Chuck Schumer and Emmanuel Macron and Kier Starmer are all on the same page, and yet your site is supposed to be a page promoting a right-wing dissident perspective! Tell the truth, have you been getting some of that sweet, sweet USAID loot lately? Come clean, Greg. You’ll feel better afterwards.
It just so happens that the libtards are right about Ukraine.
I didn’t create this platform to be insulted by a disgusting loser like you Andy, so you are henceforth banned from commenting.
Is this the same Andy Nowicki who wrote Lost Violent Souls? You are banning him? Holycow. Or is it someone taking his name for their screen name? Inquiring minds want to know. If it’s the real A.N. who’s arguing with you, I hope you will forgive him. Thanks.
Yes, it is him, and we are well rid of him.
Question for Greg, why do you think the US has such an interest in Ukraine? Like from the perspective of arming them etc.
The major impulse was to uphold the post WWII international order. There is a general horror of returning to a world where nations can seize territory by force. This is why Trump’s deal must be rejected, because it validates conquest as legitimate again. It is easy to see why the most slavishly Zionist administration in history wants to validate conquest.
Got it. Thanks for the reply.
Thanks Greg for the good and long interview! It is high time we as dissidents ditch the russian aid that we kinda accepted for some years when the globalist machine seemed undefeatable. It was always poisened aid. To me Dugin was the wake up call, I had picked up one of his books to see where the Russians want to go now and if I was mistaken to view them through a 20th century lens. But when I realized Dugin tried to sweettalk us into giving up and letting the Russians have the desired outcomes of WW2 but without the fighting I found the age old Russian enemy staring in my face, trying trickery this time.
Some people in the dissident right seem to have a cognitive problem when a foreign enemy courts the opposition. A strange mistake, as it is the go to solution when attacking anyone. US against Iraq? Of course the US courted the Kurds and the internal opposition, not because they wanted Iraq to flourish or to be merciful to the Kurds, but to better bomb the S out of the country. It is really easy to understand but when it happens to us it seems to be too difficult for some to grasp: the Russian monster wants you to not fight or even better hinder anyone that fights for you. And it points at all the (mostly real) flaws of your current leadership.
We were potty trained for so long to always take the opposite position to our crazy leaders some people have lost their ability to independent thinking and just go contrarian out of habit. Big mistake. Especially now. Our countries would desperately need a rightwing alternative for domestic policy but certainly not leaders that cannot detect a foreign enemy when he drops bombs on your partners
Nicely put.
I thought it was an informative interview, although I still am not sure I agree with everything. I don’t think it takes Russian propaganda for American wignats to support Putin and Russia. They are pre adapted to favor Putin by obvious abductive logic. Putin broke the power of the Jewish oligarchs who(as perceived) were attempting to turn Russia into the same sort of liberal democracy as they have the US. Putin stood by Syria and Iran and resisted the US neocon hegemony. Then, it would seem that the same sort of cosmopolitans in the form of Zelensky and the Jewish oligarchs who back him seized power in Ukraine in order to harass and weaken the Putin regime. That’s the way American far rightists see it, even if the story is reductive and Putin really has no pro white sympathies. It’s a compelling piece of abductive logic, which tics the wignat boxes, so I don’t think any special propaganda is needed to get most of us to think this way.
as a footnote, this is not to say that I idealize Putin or anything. It’s definitely scary how they poisoned that guy in Britain with polonium. And if you watch the 60 Minutes episode about that, I do believe the psychosexual traits they attribute to him. It’s strange. It’s like a very tight knit network of these people somehow seized power in Russia. They form very tight knit personal allegiances (probably based around certain supply lines)and somehow I feel that they have preternatural cognitive powers, similar to Frederick the great. I wonder if Stalin was of that mold, you know the icy grip upon power and apparent lack of worldly interest or distractions.
“It doesn’t take Russian propaganda to get independent-minded people on the Right to root for Putin.”
Give me an example.
“Putin broke the power of the Jewish oligarchs in Russia.”
THAT is precisely the sort of Russian propaganda for Right-wing foreigners that I am talking about. Putin is not an anti-Semite. He is very cozy with Jewish oligarchs.
The propaganda line is that he is based and Jew-pilled because he attacked several oligarchs who happened to be Jewish. But he also attacks non-Jews who oppose him.
Here’s one of my favorite headines about based Putin after he allegedly broke the Jewish oligarchs:
https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/At-Putins-side-an-army-of-Jewish-billionaires
Putin was in Israel with his Jewish billionaire friends to dedicate a monument to the Red Army.
I would love to hear Peinovich, Conte, or Striker comment honestly on this, but they are so twisted they have to screw their jackboots on in the morning.
I don’t think Putin is an antisemite. I think he was reacting to their behavior. I’m only saying how Putin is perceived, which may be reductive. I simply dont think it takes special manipulation for antisemites to want to side with Putin.
in fact, I think if there is Russian propaganda, it seems to be aimed at preventing world Jewry from seeing the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, as between Jews and antisemites, which is smart. For example, Putin gave this big talk about how whichever oligarch backs zelensky stole a bunch of money from Abramowitz, the Jewish oligarch who still supports him. It’s to make clear before the world that some Jews are in the Putin camp.
When they poisoned that guy with polonium, it was a stern warning before the world–don’t go there!
Greg Johnson, quoting someone: April 26, 2025 “It doesn’t take Russian propaganda to get independent-minded people on the Right to root for Putin.”
I would love to hear Peinovich, Conte, or Striker comment honestly on this, but they are so twisted they have to screw their jackboots on in the morning.
—
I don’t know about “independent-minded people on the [so-called] Right.”
I’m independent-minded and not at all what is identified by many C-Cers with the outdated, obsolete term “the Right.” Neither is ethnic Russian nationalist NA member Wolf Stoner who explained here on C-C last year that an American racist like David Duke was mistakenly pro-Putin: Stranger Danger: Part 2
I am glad to see the shifting trend among western nationalist-conservative auditory. The number of Putinists is decreasing. The undeniable facts of Kremlin’s genocidal anti-White policies become ever more evident for all to see… The remaining die-hard supporters of Putin among western nationalists (such as David Duke and Mark Collett) get into an ever more untenable position. How to square up their ideas with increasingly anti-White neo-Soviet rhetoric of the Russian leadership? What about the use of Negro soldiers by the Russian army? I stopped listening David Duke’s show back in 2022; I couldn’t endure anymore his insane and utterly illogical Putinism; therefore, I don’t know what he says now. But it is hard for him to acknowledge his grave mistake. Now he is a hostage of this mistake. Such an inglorious conclusion for his previous service for the White race.
Greg, I cannot speak to the three men you name. Are they former alt-righters? I pay attention to what Wolf has to say about Putin, not to those you say are “twisted,” or to that troll, What’s His Name, who was attacking Wolf here and promoting Putin here and on other western sites, because he could.
I think the reason why many pro-whites flirt with National Socialism is because of the aesthetic appeal of that ideology. Nothing looks cooler. Another reason is the open anti-Semitism and racialism of that regime. Not to mention the fact that no man in history is more demonized than Hitler. It’s transgressive and rebellious. That’s why, I think.
Hitler was an imperialist just like Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar. Collective racial unity has never existed throughout history and their has always been tribal, ethnic, and religious conflicts within each race. Montezuma and the Aztecs were conquering other Amerindian tribes and the ancient Romans at their peak viewed the Anglos and Germanics as barbarians. Hitler was not a pan-European and collective white savior that neo-Nazis portray him to be. A big reason why many white centrists and conservatives don’t want to embrace pro-white advocacy is because they associate it with Anglo/Nordic chauvinism where Slavs and Meds are treated as inferior mongrels. You don’t need Nazism to convince the various groups of Whites to fight for their survival and unite against common enemies who want to harm them. Whites of all tribal and ethnic backgrounds need to realize that the race traitors (ex. libtards, globalists) and massive 3rd world hordes are much bigger threat right now than the historical conflicts that they have always had amongst each other. I want Anglos, Nords, Slavs, and Meds to preserve their own cultural identity while respecting each other.
Picking sides in the Ukraine war seems about like voting for the lesser evil in an American election. Neither party serves the interests of whites.
Our people are in desperate need of heroic myths to inspire us. Hitlers struggle against Bolshevism is the most relevant to modern times. His life reads like a real life Greek tragedy. It seems subversive to try and deconstruct this.
Ive always admired how Greg Johnson puts practicality before ideological purity. I don’t doubt Hitler was a German chauvinist, but his actions seem to indicate he was a very practical man.
Hyperborean: May 3, 2025 Picking sides in the Ukraine war seems about like voting for the lesser evil in an American election. Neither party serves the interests of whites.
—
“Liked” for truth, Hyperborean.
—
Our people are in desperate need of heroic myths to inspire us. Hitlers struggle against Bolshevism is the most relevant to modern times. His life reads like a real life Greek tragedy. It seems subversive to try and deconstruct this.
Ive always admired how Greg Johnson puts practicality before ideological purity. I don’t doubt Hitler was a German chauvinist, but his actions seem to indicate he was a very practical man.
—
Agreed. But a “happy medium” between Hitler’s practicality and his ideological purity is not that difficult to sort out. The racial aspects of National Socialism cannot be denied, and adapted and followed despite the Allied “victory” over the Reich 80 years ago.
Wolf Stoner, an ethnic racial nationalist has repeated several times here on C-C that the racial nationalist position on the Russian/Ukranian conflict should be to “stay out, lay low, do not take sides.” Like you say, Hyperborean, Neither party serves the interests of [W]hites.
Wolf’s wisdom of complete separatism of eligible Whites from things we cannot control comes through in his essay here on C-C: The State vs. the Nation .
That essay, including comments made below it should be read or reread in their entirety.
Our task is to replace the existing state with our own racial state. Not on a grand scale yet, but in small gradual steps; starting with maximum self-reliance and social disengagement from mainstream society. The only connection that should remain with the outside world is an economic one. We need money and some services from them, nothing more. We ourselves can define our values.
Mental liberation is the first step in this struggle. When your mind is no longer captive to alien influence, you can start to think independently and see the situation as it really is, not as it is presented by media liars. This liberation formula is simple to formulate but more difficult to apply in real life, as is the case with many scientific concepts. But there is no other way. Either we take our own new direction or we remain passive, doomed victims of the hostile system.
What is the state, in its simplest original form? Even a small group of people needs some kind of self-organization. The basic principles of governance are used on the family level, and in small communities and worker cooperatives. This is where the state originates. It is where we must start, too. To organize a small group of people according to our vision is tantamount to conceiving a new state. World-historical events start from small beginnings.
I’ve read many of Wolf Stoners articles on National Vanguard. They have played a critical role in forming my opinion of the Putin regime.
Hyperborean: May 4, 2025 I’ve read many of Wolf Stoners articles on National Vanguard. They have played a critical role in forming my opinion of the Putin regime.
—
Wolf is the real thing when it comes to racial nationalism. You are not the only person that he has disabused of the idea that Putin is somehow the “Great White Hope” for our people. He has his own section on NV, here: Wolf Stoner | National Vanguard, but a wider selection of his work here: (184) Words of Wolf Stoner – White Biocentrism
Today, 9 May is the celebration in Putin’s neo-Bolshevik Russia of “The Great Victory” — what Wolf Stoner describes as “The Bloody Cult Pageant” in this must see 19-minute video: The Bloody Cult Pageant
Will Williams: May 5, 2025
Hyperborean: May 4, 2025 I’ve read many of Wolf Stoners articles on National Vanguard. They have played a critical role in forming my opinion of the Putin regime.
—
You’re a very perceptive fellow to say that. The Great Victory celebration coincides with VE Day (Victory in Europe) in America which was yesterday, 8 May. I made a point to watch TV news yesterday and didn’t see a single piece, not one, about VE Day; if there was any celebration of it here it was entirely blotted out by the love fest celebrating the new American Pope. Wolf’s brilliant video should be watched by all White race thinkers. In the end credit he sends people to counter-currents.com.
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.