The crisis in Ukraine is unfolding at full speed, and White
Nationalist circles in the West are closely following the events. A lot
has already been said about the deep cultural and historical divide
separating the western, Europe-oriented part of Ukraine from the eastern
part, which has strong ties with Russia. With Russia’s military moves in the Crimea, some are even prophesying the onset of the Third World War.
The majority of White Nationalists in the West nowadays cherish
strong hopes in Russia and Putin in particular, which have reached a
crescendo with the ongoing Ukraine crisis. However, I want to argue that
these hopes are grave delusions. Not because Putin is also controlled
by Jews, as is being countered by some White Nationalists; he may or may
not be, but that makes no difference for us. And alternatively, even if
Putin’s Russia is not controlled by the Jews as strongly as the West
(which is indeed not true – see below), even if Russia receives the full
wrath of the Jewish-controlled media, it still doesn’t make Putin’s
Russia our friend or a natural ally.
Nevertheless, I concede that at the moment Russia is the lesser evil
for the white race compared to the Jew-led West. But still it has to be
understood that Russia is also an evil, an essentially anti-white
system. Hence, at most, it could be only a temporary ally.
White Nationalists seek power to enable our race to fulfill its
destiny. To gain power, however, our movement has to have a firm grasp
on reality. We also need a thorough knowledge of its enemies and
(potential) allies. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for White
Nationalists to have a clear understanding of who the Russians are. This
understanding will be especially crucial if White Nationalists seek an
alliance with Russia in the future against a common enemy.
Somehow when reflecting upon Russians, White Nationalists, who in all
other instances are manifestly sober and realistic with regard to race
and ethnicity, suddenly lose their common sense. When one speaks of
German or French identity, it is understood that the Germans and the
French are white, European peoples, regardless of recent non-white
immigration. Thus German and French nationalism are not necessarily opposed to wider white racial interests, although they often have been. Let’s call German, French, and similar identities ethnic, because they denote a core ethnic group.
Brazilian identity, however, does not have such unambiguous racial
connotations. Brazil has many Europeans, but it also has blacks,
Amerindians, and many individuals of two or more races. Thus Brazilian
nationalism is, by its nature, inconsistent with white racial interests.
American identity used to connote whiteness, even though America had
non-white minorities. But the American identity has been transformed
into a commitment to the idea of freedom and equality for all. Thus
American nationalism is, by its nature, opposed to white racial
interests. Let’s call American, Brazilian, and analogous identities trans-racial, since they both transcend and transform races.
Russian identity is more analogous to American and Brazilian
trans-racial identity than German or French ethnic identity. There are
many Russians who are entirely European. But there are also many
Russians of Near Eastern and Mongoloid ancestry, and many of mixed
race. But even the whitest of Russians, to the extent that he thinks of
himself as a Russian, is committed to a trans-racial identity,
an identity whose racial “substratum” includes not just European, but
also Mongoloid and Near Eastern (e.g., Caucasian) elements, as well as
mixtures of all three.
A Russian is not, therefore, just another kind of European. Thus it
is with good reason that Russians have always felt that their identity,
interests, and destiny are distinct from those of Europe. European White
Nationalists need to recognize this as well.
White Nationalists are also well aware that a country’s developmental
index, its per-capita GDP, the average income of its citizens, the
level of corruption, etc. are directly correlated with average levels of
many heritable traits within its population. In terms of corruption and
many other parameters Russia is far closer to a country like Brazil
than to any European country. In some areas, Russia is not even within
Asian or Latin American ranges but rather competes with sub-Saharan
Africa.
Moreover, blaming the backwardness of Russia on Communism would be
like blaming slavery for the backwardness of Africa. Firstly, Russia has
always been backward in comparison to the West, and secondly most of
the former Eastern bloc and USSR countries in Europe managed to create
functional and prosperous societies shortly after freeing themselves
from the Russian yoke. Belarus and Ukraine have been exceptions, mainly
due to the fact that even after gaining independence they could never
properly throw off Russian influence.
If the identity, interests, and destiny of Russia are not European,
the fact that Putin has passed some traditionalist laws and that Russian
society is allegedly moving in a more traditionalist direction does not
help European White Nationalists in any way.
If we are to rejoice at Russian traditionalism and see them as allies
simply because of that, then why don’t we see Muslims as allies and see
hope for the West in their traditionalism as well? After all, they are
even more hardcore than Russians.
Traditionalism serves the well-being and promotes the survival of
every different ethnic group, but just because different ethnic groups
choose similar methods and values to promote their own survival does not
automatically make them allies.
Therefore the stronger traditionalism of Russians, their patriotism
and pride in their heritage, do not advance White Nationalist interests
any more than the racial pride and patriotism of Indians, Chinese,
Middle Easterners, Latin Americans, or Africans. Indeed, it might make
them more formidable enemies of our interests.
The Grand Duchy of Moscow as the Forerunner of the Russian state
Racially and culturally, the forerunner of Russia was the Grand Duchy
of Moscow (1263–1547) which later became the Tsardom of Russia under
Ivan IV (The Terrible), and not Kievan Rus as has been claimed by
Russian historians since the time of Catherine the Great (who, by the
way, was not Russian).
Already by the end of the 15th century, the Grand Duchy of Moscow was
populated mostly by Christianized Tatar-Mongols who in the course of
the previous two centuries had gradually adopted Orthodox Christianity
and taken Slavic names. The indigenous Slavic population had become a
minority in a relatively short period of time due to the large influx of
these Christianized Asiatic nomads, and due to mixed marriages between
Christianized Mongols and indigenous Slavs.
The expansion of the Grand Duchy of Moscow further to the east, into
the lands of Ugric peoples (e.g., Mordvins, Udmurts), increased the
Asiatic component of the population even further. Later, under Ivan the
Terrible, the Kazan and Astrakhan Khanates were conquered and
incorporated into the Tsardom of Russia. The vast majority of the Volga
Bulgars populating those states (whose descendants from the 19th century
on were falsely called “Tatars,” not to be confused with the nomadic
Tatars mentioned above), was forced to adopt Christianity and Slavic
names. And finally, beginning with the conquest of Siberia in the 17th
century, there was a gradual Christianization and Russification of the
mostly Turkic peoples populating those lands.
The only Eastern Slavic state not affected by the Mongol invasions
and hence able to retain its white Slavic/Nordic composition was the
Novgorod Republic. Its customs, its culture, and the mentality of its
inhabitants differed from those of Muscovy. As race realists should
realize, these differences relate to differences in racial composition
of those two states. The most glaring difference is in the system of
government: although Asiatic despotism reigned in Muscovy, Novgorod was
governed by a popular assembly, the “Veche,” which was similar to the
Norse “thing” or Swiss cantonal assembly.
However, as a result of two wars in 1471 and 1477–78 Novgorod was
conquered and destroyed by Muscovy. The city was devastated, and most of
its inhabitants were massacred in the cruelest (i.e., Asiatic) manner.
The Great Novgorod that was spared from the invasion by nomadic Mongols
suffered destruction at the hands of Slavs and Christianized
Tatar-Mongols. With the complete victory of Muscovy over Novgorod, the
destiny of the future Russian state was determined.
The people of Muscovy identified themselves solely as Orthodox
(Pravoslavnye), and the term “Russian” was indeed completely unknown to
them. Beginning with Ivan III, the grand dukes and later the tsars saw
themselves as the heirs of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire
(hence the term “Third Rome” coined by them), and the champions of
Orthodox Christianity. They were never guided by any kind of ethnic or
racial identity or an idea of an ethnic state. The Orthodox Church, like
all Christian churches, accepted converts of all races and blessed
interracial marriages and their offspring.
From the start, then, the Russian identity was not of a white
European people, but of a mixed white and Asiatic population professing
Orthodox Christianity and ruled from Moscow.
Interestingly, however, at that time there were people who had long
called themselves “Ruskie” (with one “s”) and most importantly were
identified as such in Western Europe. They were the descendants of the
people of Kievan Rus. At that time, they were the subjects of the Grand
Duchy of Lithuania, where they formed by far the largest demographic and
linguistic group. Their ethnic and linguistic descendants are
present-day Ukrainians and Belarusians. Later historians began calling
them Ruthenians. Modern Ukrainian and Belarusian developed from the
Ruthenian language. Therefore, it is the Ukrainians and Belarusians who
are the rightful heirs (both racially and culturally) of Kievan Rus.
There were dramatic differences between Ruthenia and Muscovy. Slavish
servility towards rulers, a typical Oriental trait, was characteristic
of the Muscovites, whereas in Ruthenia the Magdeburg Law, completely
unknown in Muscovy, operated in the towns, and the Ruthenians were as
conscious of their rights and free in spirit as their western European
counterparts. Therefore, from the very beginning, the inhabitants of
Ruthenia were aware that Muscovite-Russians were a very different
people. Even today the word “Muscovite” (Moskal) is used in Ukrainian as
a derogatory term for Russians.
Thus the opposition of Ukraine towards Russia has deep historical
roots. The recent conflict in Ukraine, as well as the Orange Revolution
in 2004, have to be seen primarily not in terms of geopolitics, as many
White Nationalists are inclined to do, but rather as a deeper
confrontation — as the struggle of European Slavs against an alien,
non-European power.
The Europeanization and De-Europeanization of Russia
There was, however, a considerable infusion of European blood and
European culture into Russia beginning in the 18th century when Peter I
(the Great) proclaimed the Russian Empire and oriented the Russian state
toward the West. Many European (mostly German, but also French,
Italian, and Swedish) engineers, craftsmen, artists, and state and army
officials were invited to Russia to develop the infrastructure, to
modernize the army and state apparatus, to educate the local population,
and to introduce western art.
This process accelerated when large numbers of German settlers were
invited by Catherine II (the Great), herself also German, to cultivate
large swathes of Russian territory. The German newcomers settled
especially around the Volga River basin, and their descendants later
became known as Volga Germans. It was mostly thanks to the efforts and
contributions of Russian Germans that Russia became Europeanized and
assumed her position among the main European powers.
Indeed, it is only beginning in the 18th century that the terms
“Russia” (Rossiya) and “Russian” (Russkiy) came into widespread use, and
historians of the Russian Empire actively promote the idea of Russia
being the rightful heir of Kievan Rus in order to ideologically justify
the past and future conquests under the motto “gathering the ancient
lands of Rus.”
This “Europeanization,” however, occurred only on the surface, and in
its essence Russia remained a distinctly non-European society, in which
a European minority elite ruled over a Slavic, Asiatic, Near Eastern,
and mixed-race population. However, this process of “Europeanization”
was drastically reversed, both culturally and more importantly racially,
with the Bolshevik Revolution.
It is a common misconception to regard the imposition of communism in
Russia as a merely a political change. First and foremost, the
Bolshevik Revolution was a revolt of the culturally and/or racially
non-European masses against the European elite. In short, this critical
event in history has to be primarily comprehended not in
social-political but rather in racial terms. The ideals of
communism served only as a façade, as a tool through which the spiteful
non-European masses expressed their deep and long-held hatred and
resentment towards their European masters and everything European. This
was already at that time clearly observed and eloquently pointed out by
Oswald Spengler.
Most importantly, communism drastically and irreversibly changed the
racial makeup of the Russian population. The Communist regime targeted
mostly the intellectual and political elites for destruction, who were
primarily descendants the indigenous Slavic population and later
European immigrants. Millions were murdered, and the luckier ones
escaped to Europe, never to return. And since the de-Europeanization of
Russia was first and foremost racial, it would be highly misleading to conclude that Russia returned to the European world after the fall of communism.
Putin’s “New” Russia
Indeed, the majority of the current Russian population reveres the
Soviet past. The official ideology of Putin’s Russia rests upon its
glorification. And, as expected, Putin’s Russia takes inspiration from
the Soviet past rather than from the Russian Empire, which can be
regarded as the only (quasi) European period in Russian history. Putin
once even called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest
catastrophe of the 20th century.” Not the creation of the Soviet Union, mind you, but rather its collapse is the great catastrophe for Putin and his supporters, who are the vast majority of Russians.
Most importantly, every year Russians joyfully celebrate their
“victory” in the Second World War (which they call “Great Patriotic
War”), without regard to the fact that this “victory” was the gravest
event in the history of the white race. These celebrations are
accompanied by military parades on the Red Square in Moscow. This cult
of victory is the main pillar upon which the national identity of
Putin’s “new” Russia rests. They venerate their “veterans of the Great
Patriotic War” who were the rapists of millions of white women,
murderers of millions of white men and children. Basically this
veneration of the barbarian hordes, and the pride that they feel in the
barbarian invasion of Europe, underlines their ethnic identity. This
alone is enough to conclusively demonstrate that the identity and
nationalism of Russians are in conflict with white ethnic identity.
Even the slightest attempt to shed light on the crimes of the Red
Army and to revise the official WWII narrative is met with the same kind
of hysteria that characterizes Western liberals. At every opportunity,
the Russian media demonize Estonia, Latvia, or Ukraine when they
commemorate their heroes who fought alongside Germany against the Red
Army defending their homelands, or when they remove the monuments to Red
Army soldiers installed in their cities by the Soviet government. For
example, in 2007, when Estonian authorities removed the Red Army
monument in the center of Tallinn, the official Russian media went into
hysterics, and “youths” from pro-Putin organizations surrounded the
Estonian embassy in Moscow and threatened the ambassador.
There are a lot of Russians living in Estonia and Latvia (around 30%
of the population). Their ancestors were settled there by Stalin in a
deliberate attempt to change the demographics of those two small Baltic
states. The social profile, behavior, and attitudes of these Russians
closely resemble those of non-white Third World immigrants in western
countries.
One simple and glaring example illustrates this point. The removal of
the Red Army monument in the center of Tallinn coincided with the
presidential elections in France which resulted in the victory of
Nicolas Sarkozy. As is well known, after the elections the black/Arab
population rioted. Around the same time, the Russians rioted in Tallinn,
and they did everything they could to earn the name “Arabs of Estonia” —
e.g., in Tallinn, as in Paris, burning cars and vandalism were
widespread. But that did not stop Russian news sources from branding the
Estonian government and police evil “fascists.”
In addition, many western White Nationalists may be surprised to hear
that the Russian inhabitants of Crimea have recently shown their
solidarity with Russia by waving the banners of the USSR and the
Ukrainian Communist Party. They also have vilified and demonized the
leaders of the Ukrainian resistance fighters who fought alongside the
Germans against invading Soviet hordes – i.e., Stepan Bandera and Roman
Shukhevich.
Putin’s Russia is Nearly as Anti-White as the Liberal West
It is also a widespread delusion among western White Nationalists
that Russia is free of Jewish influence and is an antidote to the
Jew-led New World Order. Firstly, at every opportunity, Putin pays
homage to the official “holocaust” narrative promulgated by the Jews. On
many occasions he said that the holocaust was the most abominable
atrocity in history, and the Red Army put an end to this horror. Since
the cult of victory in WWII and the glorification of the Soviet past are
the main pillars of national identity in modern Russia, this implies
that Russian identity and patriotism are not only not opposed to Jewish interests but, on the contrary, are directly in line with them.
Secondly, anti-Semitism is very weak in Putin’s Russia, and Jews feel
quite comfortable and welcome. Jewish life is flourishing at a level
comparable only to the early aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution. A
popular Russian-Jewish crooner, Iosif Kobzon, said not so long ago that
“Jews are currently experiencing a Renaissance in Russia.” Furthermore,
before the presidential elections in 2012, the chairman of the Council
of Russian Jews proclaimed his full support to Putin and expressed his
confidence that all Jews in Russia will vote for him. He even said that
he doesn’t know a single Jew in Russia who would be against Putin.
Moreover, again contrary to the hopes of many White Nationalists,
neither Putin’s opposition to U.S. military intervention in Syria nor
his passing legislation against some of the currents actively promoted
by Jews in the West (e.g., homosexuality) is enough to qualify him as
our ally or as anti-Jewish. For one thing, the attitude of international
Jewry towards the Syrian crisis is not monolithic. While neocons
promote military intervention, the Left, which is also led by Jews,
strongly opposes it. Therefore, one cannot say that the failure of the
campaign against the Assad regime is the failure of a specifically
Jewish issue.
Regarding Putin’s anti-gay legislation, Uganda has also recently
passed a law against homosexuality. Blacks and Muslims have been
staunchly homophobic from time immemorial. But is it enough to make
Uganda or Muslims and blacks in general our allies?
Finally, and most importantly, real Russian White
Nationalists, who are as much a minority in Putin’s Russia as their
counterparts are in the West, are vilified as “Nazis” and are persecuted
far more harshly than in the liberal west.
The Ukrainian Revolution from White Nationalist Point of View
Many western White Nationalists lament that Ukrainian nationalist
organizations receive support from and maybe try to court favor from
Jews. Others reproach Ukrainians for their petty nationalistic
separatism, which is allegedly incompatible with the common fight
against the perilous situation of whites worldwide. However, Ukraine is
currently in a historical stage which western nations passed through
long ago — i.e., the acquisition of a national identity. This step is a
precondition for Ukrainians to acquire a broader sense white identity in
the future.
Therefore, any consistent and honest White Nationalist should support
the current Ukrainian revolution. If Ukraine has any chance to join the
larger white European family, this is the time. White Ukrainians are
breaking free from the Russian (non-European) yoke and joining their
white brethren in the West.
It is simply a given that Jews will interfere with and try to profit
from every upheaval, and they hedge their bets by playing both sides.
Putin also has Jewish friends and advisers. So Jewish involvement in
Ukrainian affairs is not in itself evidence that Jews are running the
show, any more than Jewish involvement in Russian affairs is evidence
that they control Putin.
Moreover, western White Nationalists should not underestimate
Ukrainians (and by extension other Eastern Europeans), and they should
not overestimate the brainwashing power of the Jew-led EU. Having closer
ties with the West and even joining the EU does not automatically mean
Ukraine will be flooded by hordes of non-white immigrants or gays will
be marching on the streets of every big city.
Many Eastern European countries, including the post-Soviet republics
of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, joined the EU in 2004. However, those
countries remain predominantly white. So far, they have been completely
spared the demographic changes experienced by western countries through
non-white mass immigration. Eastern Europeans are sufficiently
traditionalist not to permit their countries to be flooded by
non-whites.
In addition, non-white immigrants find relatively poor Eastern
European countries unattractive destinations. They look for easy money,
welfare, preferential treatment, an opportunity to behave insolently
with impunity, etc. If they feel that the local white population will
not provide these opportunities to them, they will simply avoid those
places.
Non-white immigrants also avoid relatively ethnocentric societies.
Eastern Europe (especially Poland and Ukraine) already has a widespread
image as “racist” terrain, to be avoided. The same incentives can be
observed within Germany. The former East German territories have the
reputation of being populated with “racists” and dangerous for
immigrants. As a result, Turks, blacks, Arabs, etc. are simply afraid to
go there. Thus even large cities like Leipzig and Dresden continue to
have almost exclusively white populations.
Concluding Remarks
I wish to repeat and emphasize that I recognize that there are many
white people in Russia, just as there are many whites in Latin American
and the US. And I recognize all whites as potential allies of White
Nationalism. However, Russian White Nationalists have to understand that
white identity is in conflict with Russian patriotism and Russian
ethnic identity, just as white Mexicans recognize that White Nationalism
is incompatible with Mexican identity and patriotism, and white
Americans recognize that White Nationalism is incompatible with the
universalistic, multiracial concept of American identity that Jews
promote.
But those who think of themselves as Russians first and whites second
have an identity, interests, and destiny opposed to Europe and White
Nationalism. The same is true of a white American who thinks of himself
as an American first, thereby adopting an identity, interests, and
destiny opposed to White Nationalism. Being a French or a German patriot
does not necessarily conflict with larger white interests, since
France and German are integrally white countries. But being an American
or Brazilian or Russian patriot does. Vladimir Putin is a Russian
patriot. For a White Nationalist, that should not be a compliment.
To be consistent, White Nationalists should support Svoboda and Right Sector and not
Putin’s Russia. A movement that aims at power has to possess a clear
and sober understanding of its friends, potential allies, and enemies.
First and foremost, it has to consolidate all of its adherents before
considering an alliance with an alien power against a common enemy. It
might well be expedient to ally ourselves with Russia on some occasions.
But that alliance should not entail the betrayal of our racial and
ideological brethren in Eastern Europe.
To conclude, western White Nationalists need to awaken from their
Russophile dreams and face reality. Rather than fawning over Russia and
Putin, they should be more concerned with maintaining their credibility
with their Eastern European brothers and sisters. There are many devoted
Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian, and other Eastern European nationalists
reading western White Nationalist sites. When they encounter naïve,
childish, and frankly hysterical Russophilia, they are rightly appalled.
Russian identity is as trans-racial as American identity,
Christianity, Islam, liberalism, and Marxism. Russian imperialism, like
American imperialism, Christianity, Islam, etc., is a mighty engine of
miscegenation, an engine that has been chugging away since the Middle
Ages. Like the first Rome and the second Rome, the Third Rome is not a
nation but a machine that liquidates every nation it captures, including its own founders.
Thus Russian imperialism is not an alternative to globalization, but
just another form of it. Thus Russia is not the future of the white
race, but one of its graveyards. White Nationalists should, therefore,
sympathize first and foremost with those white Russians and all captive
peoples who wish to free themselves of that machine and its master,
Vladimir Putin.
Source http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/03/white-nationalist-delusions-about-russia/
0 comMENTS:
Post a Comment