It’s been killing people since WWII itself, which was prolonged by the Allies’ unjustifiable demand for unconditional surrender, which was motivated by believing their own hateful propaganda.
President Putin says he invaded Ukraine to rid it of Nazis. Outsiders argue about whether Ukraine actually is full of Nazis and whether Putin is being honest about this motivation. No one seems to question that if a country is full of Nazis or run by Nazis that this is a good reason to attack it.
This I deny. It is not acceptable to attack a group just because it embraces the ideology of National Socialism. Furthermore, Ukraine was perfectly justified in fighting with the Nazis in WWII against Soviet tyranny, and it is right to be proud of having done so.
Consider the following two pieces of Russian justification. 1) “Ukrainians are killing ethnic Russians in the Donbass, and we’ve got to stop them.” 2) “They’re doing it because they’re a bunch of Nazis.” I claim that #2 does no work. If #1 is a casus belli, then go with that, and don’t interest yourself with the Ukrainians’ political beliefs. Don’t use #1 just as evidence of #2 as if #2 is anyone else’s business. This is important because “deNazifying” Ukraine is as stupidly open-ended as “democratizing” Iraq.
Like many traditionalists, I had hoped for a swift Russian victory, because nothing matters more than the defeat of the Satanic American regime. As the last major-power white Christian country, Russia is the last outpost of Western Civilization and so has a better claim on our loyalty than our own wicked countries that make no disguise of their hatred for us. In the long run, Ukraine stands a better chance of having its people and culture endure if it is conquered by Russia than if it is assimilated into the EU.
That being said, I fear that this war will prove to have been a great blunder for Russia. President Putin is of course right to suspect that America wants to take over his country and install a puppet regime to promote sodomy and anti-white bigotry. However, America was never going to do that by firing missiles from Ukraine; it wants to do it the same way it did it to Ukraine itself. Attacking other countries or keeping them out of NATO doesn’t do anything to protect one from an American-orchestrated coup. The thing to do is to attack Western-Satanist agents operating inside Russia, the journalists and international NGOs. Putin is already doing that, you say? Well, do it harder. If one must shoot someone, journalists deserve it far more than Ukrainian Nazis.
The Orthosphere 
Agreed…
It is being argued by Scott Ritter and others that prior to this war Putin was constrained by the 20% of his electorate that is middle class and tied into the Western economy for their livelihoods and that he couldn’t outright divorce Russia from the West and keep his coalition together. But now that the West has done the divorcing (via sanctions, seizing reserve assets) Putin is free to do what he’s wanted to do for two decades and send the Western bankers and NGO’s packing and with broad support from the electorate.
Hmmm… using Putinesque logic, American Patriots should be invading Washington, D.C. to rid it of Communists. I could support that.
“If one must shoot someone, journalists deserve it far more than Ukrainian Nazis.”
Needs to be printed on a blue-yellow flag and hoisted up somewhere.
What you said isn’t illegal. For a threat to be considered legally valid in the USA it has to IIRC fulfill at least 2 of the 3 following criteria: give the name of a specific person, incite people to do it, give a specific time/place, etc.
But with all the federal sp00ks infiltrating “far-right” venues to up the rhetoric and get people to “do something” or “take action”, I would stay at least several arm lengths away from anything that could be construed as a threat and get you or your neighbors a visit from federal agents
Reblogged this on Political Reactionary.
Thank you for writing this. As I have pointed out on my own blog ( https://historyandwarfare.wordpress.com/2022/03/20/causes-of-war-in-ukraine/ ), invasion of Ukraine is not baseless nor aimless, but it likely is a mistake.
I wouldn’t say that just yet. IMO most of this “Russia is making a mistake” and such is concern trolling (look it up) by people with demoralization agendas. They want American conservatives to be demoralized.
The value of the Ruble has already mostly recovered to pre-February levels, China & India, home to 2 billion people, said they’re not sanctioning Russia, Putin’s approval ratings are sky high, Russians all around the world are rallying around their country, they’re making a killing on gas exports due to sanctions, degenerate Western Bloc media has de-facto been banned in Russia, and from the West, so Putin rids his country of foreign influence -AND- he can’t take blame for doing it, all of the major military operations E.G. the defense of Donesk and Lugest have been completed, Kiev is encircled, the Ukrainan air force isn’t able to get a single fighter jet up off the ground, Russia’s officer training manuals now list Russia as “The last bastion against the NWO” etc.
Looks so far that Russia’s plan has went off basically without a hitch, the entire world is now viewing the Washington Regime as a rogue state and forming an Eastern Bloc alliance against Great Reset NWO hegemony, the value of the Petro-Dollar is waning, the Dollar’s status as unquestioned global reserve currency is waning, and the list goes on.
Also, your comment fails to take into account the way that Russian leadership views the conflict. While they do want to avoid nuclear war, their psyche views the situation as an existential battle for Russian survival, no different than WWII. They look at the situation, and the prospect for nuclear war, and say: “Why should there be a world if it’s going to be a world without Russia?” meanwhile the Western Bloc consensus is “survival at all costs”.
From Russia’s POV, what exactly is the mistake here? All that above taken into account, its a win-draw scenerio. Heads they win, tails they loose but the entire world gets destroyed in the process, so their enemies also loose.
Actually, people saying that “Russia has made a mistake” fit into two categories (and, frankly, I fit into both):
1) those who are concerned that Washington has provoked war to destroy both Russia’s economy and its public image
2) those who are concerned that far left will profit from the war on the political plane.
This is not the first time Russia has invaded a neighbouring country. And while I can, to an extent, understand why, such behavior does give the West some major propaganda material.
The flop of the Nazi meme at least gives the lie to the Moscow mind-control myth. The Russians are astonishingly bad at propaganda and so do not understand that Nazi is a slur copyrighted by globalist for their own exclusive use. They also do not understand that the Western mind cannot comprehend how one group of whites can be racist against another group of whites. Their refusal to run out of bullets is, however, creating problems for the Washington mind control machine.
Is the Nazi meme really a meme though? Its easy for us, in America, across an entire ocean from where WWII started and say “its just something that happened 80 years ago, why are they still harping on it?”, but this reveals a difference between the American mind and the Slavic mind. America is a very young nation, with much less history, and a much less well defined idea of what an “American” actually is. I once overheard my Serbian immigrant friends in high school recall war events (IIRC this was related to the Kosovo independence thing then) that happened to Serbia as though they had happened to them personally. Americans are largely very ignorant of even their own history, or things that happened even a few years ago.
I imagine the Nazi meme was more intended for non-Western Bloc audiences. Russians will agree with it, and other countries, knowing of Russia’s history in WWII, will find it understandable.
Basically, nothing Russia can say will sway Americans at this point. However, one thing Putin *could’ve* done, before his entire country got #Cancelled, was to attempt to outreach to American Christian conservatives, stress Russia’s Christian credentials, etc.
One propaganda thing Putin has been very good at is saying “Washington” instead of “America” when criticizing our government
Pingback: Hateful World War II propaganda still killing people, now in Ukraine – Love Angels Tarot 💗
“As the last major-power white Christian country…”
Russia might have been that, but Putin didn’t make it so. Attacking one of the whitest countries was a depraved act and an act of Soviet-style imperialism. He also plays fast and loose with jihadis of all types: Chechens, Iranians, Syrians and is apparently not averse seeing Eastern European countries infiltrated and undermined with jihadis with the cooperation of his loyal satellite Belarus.
He was the only leader is a position to be a white pro-Christian autocrat (or at least a non-democrat), but he certainly isn’t that, he’s no Franco.
Now the prospect of a strong independent coalition of Eastern European countries seems even more remote as a result of this invasion.
War is just politics on a much grander scale.
Like, would you say that a group of Trump supporters attacking a group of Antifa was bad because Antifa is mostly White?
What if Antifa basically ruled an entire country via their government? Most of the social leftist causes (e.g., the gay) pushed by Washington in America were/are also being pushed in the Ukraine. Russia is putting a stop to that.
Also, Russia’s military operations in the Ukraine have been *very* tame. They’re trying very hard to minimize civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. If they had invaded like Washington went into Iraq in 2003, shooting missiles at them for a month prior, taking out power plants, water treatment plants, etc, Russia could’ve had the entire country invaded and occupied in less than a week.
Russia is an empire, no different than Rome, so of course they have battalions of ethnic fighters taking part in their war. Its good for promoting loyalty of the 50+ ethnic groups that live in Russia by making them apart of your war.
I haven’t heard anything about Chechens going around and committing war crimes, and imagine Russia has them on a tight leash with strict rules of engagement. The White neo-Nazis in Azov are the ones doing the really depraived stuff.
I believe Franco made use of some colonial Muslims in the Civil war and quite rightly so.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/05/29/russians-are-not-waiting-for-a-church-boom-a65792
It is not acceptable to attack a group just because it embraces the ideology of National Socialism.
Acceptable to whom exactly? I find it more than acceptable, I find it laudable. And that’s a pretty mainstream opinion, for what that’s worth. Most people think that, yeah, embracing the ideology of National Socialism makes you a social and moral pariah and fully justifies an attack.
If this is due to hateful propaganda, so be it. The Nazis lost the propaganda war as well as their actual war, and if they are now a synecdoche for radical evil, they did their part to earn it.
I do appreciate your forthrightness in declaring both support for Nazism and your opposition to American values. That is pretty brave, because those are not acceptable views in the world we live in.
Acceptability is an inherently political notion, isn’t it? In a theocratic regime, heresy or different religions can be unacceptable, under communism, being a bourgeoise was unacceptable, and under nazism, being jewish was unacceptable. And under liberalism, which, as I think you would agree, rules us today, nazi sympathies are unacceptable.
But OK I reread your post, and what you really mean that it’s unacceptable for Putin to use anti-Nazi arguments, because he and they are really on the same side. Well, on that we can agree. But nobody at all is taking those arguments seriously, as far as I can tell, they are transparent lies.
The thought of Putin being told what is acceptable or not by random bloggers is kind of amusing.
If yours is a “pretty mainstream opinion” in the upside-down bassackwards clown world hell we all inhabit, that is a pretty good indication it, and you, are wrong. In case you hadn’t figured that out yet.
Amorpheus’s views basically describe my own here.
Its a very spergy thing to just, metaphysically, walk into a room and flop your dick onto the table, like LBJ actually did (physically) on more than one occasion.
While the modern US cartoon evil version of what Naziism actually was is very factually incorrect, its also true that the alt-right types tend to *really* whitewash WWII. Instead of wanting to understand what actually happened, they take the modern Western version and just swap Stalin/Churchhill/FDR with Hitler/Mussolini/Tojo as The Ultimate Evil(TM).
The Nazis were not these vague “White nationalists” like American types in our sphere tend to think. If “White genocide” = not necessarily doing direct killings, but undermining the culture and encouraging immigration, then the Germans wanted to do to the Poles and Russians just what the GloboHomo elites want to do to North America and Europe.
I don’t understand the “he (Putin) and they (Nazis) are basically on the same side thing. That’s only true if you agree with the mainstream leftist definition of “Nazi” which is basically “Trump and anyone at all to the right of him is a Nazi”
And I find it very bizarre that the general trend on this site seems to deny the existence of Azov and their 8 years of terrorism against Russians in the Donbass. Yes, its not like the entire country is run by these guys, but the main reason for the invasion was to liberate Donesk and Lugesk from the Ukrainian government, and the people who were genociding the Russians there were from the Azov division
Acceptable to whom exactly? I find it more than acceptable, I find it laudable. And that’s a pretty mainstream opinion, for what that’s worth. Most people think that, yeah, embracing the ideology of National Socialism makes you a social and moral pariah and fully justifies an attack.
It is interesting to me that a very short time ago, the extreme left ACLU thought that attacks on those who embraced the ideology of National Socialism were not justified and that one should be free to embrace National Socialism in this country on free speech grounds.
So the left now rejects the liberal principle of free speech that it erstwhile embraced. Or perhaps more accurately, it has subordinated the principle of free speech to its more fundamental commitment to the principle that “one ought to be free to do as he chooses provided he does not infringe on the equal freedom of others to do as they choose” by expanding the definition of ‘harm’ to encompass certain speech acts. So you’re still free to say or believe whatever you want, insofar as your speech and beliefs are not the sort or speech or beliefs that cause ‘harm’ to anyone.
Not that I have a problem with rejecting the principle of free speech. I reject it too.
I do appreciate your forthrightness in declaring both support for Nazism…
I don’t think Bonald ‘supports’ Nazism, only that they are the lesser evil in some cases.
[I]t’s unacceptable for Putin to use anti-Nazi arguments, because he and they are really on the same side. Well, on that we can agree.
?
Most of what you seem to label as “the left” is in favor of free speech. Most liberals are not (by definition) the extreme left, just like most conservatives would not endorse the views expressed on the Orthosphere. Most people are moderates. Unfortunately the extremes on both sides are currently dominating the political conversation these days. I sincerely hope and am reasonably confident that the moderates will reassert their rightful domination of the political conversation in due time.
Scripture suggests that the Laodiceans will not reassert themselves, at least not ultimately, and that moderation is in fact loathsome in the eyes of the Lord.
“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Revelations 3: 15-16)
Sometimes the moderate position is correct, but it is correct because it is correct and not because it is moderate.
The extreme positions are the ones engaging in misinformation, attempting to undermine our political institutions and other positions any reasonable, honest and virtuous person would consider to be incorrect.
This is question-begging since the extreme positions accuse the moderates of precisely the same things. All extremists agree that moderation is what brought us to the point where extreme measures are necessary. I don’t think of myself as moderate or extremist since I think the moderate answer is sometimes correct but is not always correct.
It makes sense that the moderate position is not always correct. But I’m pretty sure it’s correct most of the time. Likewise the extreme positions are incorrect most of the time.
Also this:
Unfortunately the extremes on both sides are currently dominating the political conversation these days.
This doesn’t seem accurate: the rightwing extreme is not dominating anything today. For example, Orthosphere thought is not dominating anything; neither is integralism. For modernist rightwing ideologies, Nazism and fascism are nonexistent. The Alt-right ‘flourished’ for a few years, but ‘flourishing’ is a relative term meaning they had an outsized online presence compared to their numbers and drew a disproportionate focus from the mainstream media. They certainly did not dominate any major institutions or major media organs. And anyway, they’re dead now too.
The rightwing ‘extreme’ that dominates political conversation today is more ore less the same right-liberal faction that has dominated ‘conservative’ thought for decades, but with perhaps an extra pinch of nationalism and populism thrown in, some extra conspiracy theories, and a capitulation on sodomy. Still firmly within mainstream liberalism.
The extreme on the right are those who favor subverting the US election system because their candidate did not win and those who readily and uncritically believe anything that supports this subversion for example.
WinstonS @. I trust you recall the aftermath the 2016 election. “Russian disinformation” was at least as delusional as “Stop the Steal.” This is not a Left/Right thing. It’s a post-social-media thing.
I disagree. There were numerous instances where this was all debunked. No evidence was produced or found to support a “steal” and many Republicans (notably AG Barr) said there was no evidence, and all court cases brought by Trump and his supporters were denied. Not to mention the AZ “audit” results. Anyone who believed the “steal” nonsense wanted to believe it for political reasons.
My point is that there was also zero grounds for the Russian collusion hoax.
Trump’s strange affinity for Russia and Putin, defending them over US intelligence certainly raised my eye brow. Also there is evidence that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and intervened via social media to help Trump get elected. But let’s put that aside for now.
You said this was a social media thing rather than a left / right thing. But it is a left right thing. Clearly, people are more apt to believe something they see on social media if it aligns with their world view.
I think almost all social media things become left-right things because social media leads us into what I’ve heard described as information silos. I think the old expression “echo chamber” also covers it. It also allows very easy access to opposing points of view, but this does not seem to moderate the opinions of those rare individuals who step outside their information silo. I know that reading liberal opinion now lowers my opinion of liberal opinion. We can all see the terrible political consequences of this, but the force driving this change is beyond anyone’s control.
winstonscrooge,
Most of what you seem to label as “the left” is in favor of free speech.
Maybe, I’m not sure. It seems pretty common to see in outlets like the NYT that things that qualify as ‘hate speech’ should not be protected by free speech. And I would guess that quite a few people, even many of those who would be perceived as moderates, would be ok with restricting speech advocating Nazi ideology.
Of course, when you say that most of ‘the left’ favors free speech, it depends on what you mean by ‘free speech’: for example, the formerly dominant classical liberal view of free speech still restricted various forms of speech. Whether speech is ‘free’ or not depends on the perspective.
It makes sense that the moderate position is not always correct. But I’m pretty sure it’s correct most of the time. Likewise the extreme positions are incorrect most of the time.
But moderate compared to what? Orthosphere positions are moderate when compared to various societies that have existed in the past.
Moderatism or, I suppose, centrism, seems like a philosophy of American suburbanites who want the government to start rounding up dissidents if asparagus prices get too high. In the old Soviet Union, I guess the centrist position would be that only half the people belonged in the camps.
My favorite centrist is Jerry Taylor, former president of the avowedly centrist Niskanen Center. The Niskanen Center’s 2019 report talks about the “cleansing fire” needed to purge the land of “Trumpism.” Great, moderate stuff.
Jerry Taylor famously said that “If I were in that march, and these racist lunatics were waiving guns at me, I’d like to think I’d rush them and beat their brains in. And I wouldn’t apologize for it for one goddam second,” and “Yeah, excuse me if I root for #antifa to punch these idiots out. Guilty as charged. I know who’s side I’m on.” This was in response to some wealthy St. Louis PI attorneys using firearms to defend their own property.
Jerry wasn’t done! Some months later, “Taylor, 58, then allegedly pushed her onto the kitchen floor and put his hands around her neck and slapped her, the officer recorded in her notes. After she told him he shouldn’t do that, Taylor allegedly pushed her out of the house and pushed her down the front steps, injuring her, according to the complaint.
The officer, who responded at around 1 a.m., said in her police report that she observed “fresh scrape marks on her left leg and left ankle” of Taylor’s wife and that the woman also complained about pain from her right shoulder and her back. He had no visible injuries.”
Jeez, Jerry. Simmer down!
Anyway, I relate this just to observe that in my opinion, there is this strange, unhinged thread in centrism, as if the greatest value is the status quo, and anybody who threatens the status quo just needs to have their heads bashed in by the government. So the McCloskeys actually push back against #BLM and antifa trespassing on their property, and centrists like Jerry Taylor fantasize about beating them to death.
I’ve noticed this new ferocity in my centrist friends. I think it is because they are fighting to hold on to their denial that the world order is changing in deep and unpredictable ways. In their eyes an extremist is someone who wants to burn the world down; in my eyes an extremist is someone who smells the smoke and believes the world is already on fire.
“Moderatism or, I suppose, centrism, seems like a philosophy of American suburbanites who want the government to start rounding up dissidents if asparagus prices get too high.”
I think at their core, moderates or centrists see value in the current system. Yes there are problems but those problems have to do with the cycles of history and politics rather than a one way slide to hell. As a practical definition we can say that the moderates generally hold the majority opinion (spoken or silent), the bell part of the curve and the extremes generally hold minority opinions. Again, the loudness of this opinion does not factor in.
The best example I can think of is those on the extreme left wish to take down the traditional political system and replace it with woke Marxism and those on the extreme right wish to take down the traditional political system (hence the undermining of the election process) and replace it with a monarchy or theocracy of some kind.
“This I deny. It is not acceptable to attack a group just because it embraces the ideology of National Socialism.”
Huh? What a stupid thing to say. First of all, they are not being attacked because of that. Despite Putin and everyone else talking about “Nazis”, the war has nothing to do with whatever ideology they embrace, but simply because of the previous conflict in the Donbass region, and because of NATO interference. They could be nazis, communist, or hare krishna, it wouldn’t change things much. But, second, yes, it can acceptable, depending on the context.
(That said, there ARE a lot of Nazi sympathizers in the current Ukraine military, it’s very clear to see.)
“Furthermore, Ukraine was perfectly justified in fighting with the Nazis in WWII against Soviet tyranny, and it is right to be proud of having done so.”
??!!?
Ukraine was between a rock and a hard place in WWII. The Soviet Union under Stalin was no fun. but the German soldiers killed millions of Russians and Ukrainians during the invasion. It’s hard to see how Ukrainians fighting along with German invaders who were killing ethnic Ukrainians/Russians wouldn’t be seen as traitors. Just as it’s hard not to see the current Aziv-Nazi soldiers shooting civilians or using them as hostages as a very disgusting tactic.
I don’t much like the Nazis, old or new, so it’s weird to see why so many people in the alt-right defending them and LARPing. It’s weird how WWII refuses to die.
Ukraine was between a rock and a hard place in WWII. The Soviet Union under Stalin was no fun. but the German soldiers killed millions of Russians and Ukrainians during the invasion. It’s hard to see how Ukrainians fighting along with German invaders who were killing ethnic Ukrainians/Russians wouldn’t be seen as traitors.
My recollection from reading about WWII is that Ukrainians initially welcomed the Nazis as liberators from Soviet tyranny, but then basically changed sides after the harsh and cruel treatment they received at the hands of the Nazi invaders.
So the Nazis basically gave Ukrainians the same treatment they gave Northern Italians during the Salo Republic era, while they were retreating further north to escape the US advance
Pingback: Sunday Morning Coffee 04/03/2022 – A Mari Usque Ad Mare
Bonald,
Have you seen Feser’s posts arguing that Russia’s actions amount to waging an unjust war and therefore ought to be condemned? If so, what do you think of his argument?
Like many traditionalists, I had hoped for a swift Russian victory, because nothing matters more than the defeat of the Satanic American regime. As the last major-power white Christian country, Russia is the last outpost of Western Civilization and so has a better claim on our loyalty than our own wicked countries that make no disguise of their hatred for us.
How is the object of our loyalty to be determined? In one of the Feser threads, I suggested an analogy to a man having a wicked father: he still owes loyalty to his father in spite of his wickedness (though not at the expense of opposing his wickedness or refusing to join in with him in his wickedness). So it is with America. Is the analogy wrong?
It is not acceptable to attack a group just because it embraces the ideology of National Socialism.
Agreed. Though if the nation had been Christian and then its ruling class embraced National Socialism, I could see it as justified to come to the aid of those who wanted to maintain their nation’s Christian character.
Feser’s arguments against the Russian invasion of Ukraine can be refuted by, among other things, citing his own justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
I had actually considered writing a post quoting Prof. Feser’s old post on old scholastic writings on just causes of war (including, if I recall correctly, having one’s leader dissed) that he wrote when the US invaded Iraq.
I didn’t do it 1) because I’m lazy and didn’t feel like tracking down his old writing, and 2) I more-or-less approved of the old post. Even at the time, I didn’t think invading Iraq was a good idea, but I didn’t like the presumption of critics that GW Bush must be in a state of mortal sin. Historically–and properly–just war teaching gives a wide presumption in favor of war-making rulers. Despite what we’re told, the criteria for a just war are not difficult to meet, and just wars are not uncommon. The point is not to make wars uncommon but to protect the souls of rulers by making sure they don’t fight wars for merely selfish or frivolous reasons. It is probably not uncommon for both sides in a war to have just cause, i.e. to be fighting without sin. Just about any plausible claim of intolerable threat and compelling national interest is enough for me to refrain from calling the ruler a “mass murderer”, although I still might think the war a bad idea.
Thanks, Bonald. That’s an interesting take: it is rather different from what one typically hears from just war theorists today, i.e., that just wars are exceedingly rare. The idea that just war theory gives a wide presumption in favor of war-making rulers is appealing, because otherwise we probably have to regard a great many Christian monarchs during the era of Christendom as having been in states of mortal sin owing to wars they waged: and I don’t get the impression that wars during this period were generally perceived this way.
Here’s an old First Things article that perhaps supports your point of view (though it’s been a while since I read it). The author notes that the idea of just war theory beginning with a “presumption against war” is a recent development. He also argues that it is only the first three criteria of just war theory that determine the justice of a war (sovereign authority, just cause, and right intention). The three other criteria (last resort, proportionality, chance of success) were added later, and, according to the author, ought to be interpreted as prudential considerations rather than as determinative of justice:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/01/just-war-as-it-was-and-is
In Feser’s defense, he’s a smart guy, and I’m sure he remembers his old posts on the Iraq War and would point to some factor that distinguishes the justice or injustice of this war from that one. My recollection is that his main justification for the Iraq War was that Iraq had violated the 1991 ceasefire treaty.
At any rate, I think I’ll continue not to have an opinion on this war.
yes this is very true
Goliath now fights by pretending he is David.
Believe what you want to believe.
I have a very strong suspicion that your people and culture has not experienced the joys of being conquered by Russia, either in its Tsarist, communist or most recent Donbabwe/Luganda edition.
Speaking as a person belonging to a nation that went through at least two of the above, it’s worth mentioning that Poland is leading in the EU approval rating, all while having comparatively vibrant national culture – before the invasion, Poland was view alongside Hungary as traditionalist enclaves in the degenerate West.
The Tsarist times on the other hand was a period of aggressive Russification, and Russian Communist occupation began with genocide, and ended in leaving the rootless post-communist elites and mafia as the two strongest cultural influences.
Thank you for publishing my comment. I would appreciate publishing my other one as well (even in a censored version if you deem it as partly inappropriate), because it contains insights into the Russian stance omitted by the Anglophone and Western European traditionalists.
This wasn’t my post, but I approved your comment after it had been sitting in the bin for awhile. I don’t know what became of your earlier comment, since no comments now remain unapproved.
It’s a moot point as Russia is soon headed for a demographic collapse.
We are all headed for a demographic collapse. Modernity is a black hole and we have passed the event horizon.
Untrue.
O.K. All of us except the Africans.
In our eagerness to find someone fighting for the good, traditionalists need to remember some salient facts that our journalists have forgotten.
Putin is the former head of the KGB.
He is the current leader of the abortion capital of the world.
10 years ago Obama was promising his government “more flexibility” after his election.
Is this guy really the traditionalist champion?
Most of us on this blog have come to understand that just because right-liberals and left-liberals are bitter enemies, that does not make them opposites. We need to apply that insight here.
You *may* be right, but let me bring up some counter-points to your points.
If you’re here on the Orthosphere, you’re on the Internet in 2022 with (even despite the censorship, if you know where to look) basically the entirety of all mankind’s known history at your disposal.
This was not the case when V Putin was born in *1952*. He grew up in the aftermath of WWII, a literal Russian Boomer, in the Soviet Union. Had you been born then, in the USSR, you would likely have been completely brainwashed by the Soviet propaganda just the same as him.
Also, another factor, and one we may not like to admit: if you’re reading these kinds of super esoteric and high-IQ blogs like Orthosphere, you’re probably at least a little but spergy. Most people are not like that, *especially* the sorts of people who actually gain and maintain power, as that requires tons of social skills that the more intellectually inclined folks here tend not to have.
In Russia in particular, and the Slavic countries in general, “truth” has a different meaning than it does amongst people on the polar-opposite side of the European spectrum: Anglo-Saxons and Germanic / Nordic descended peoples.
The Anglo or Nordic defines truth in a very literalistic fashion: what is “really real” in the material sense of the word. To the Slavic mind, “truth” is a far more flexible type of thing. Its more akin to truth + pragmatism. I have found this with myself (being Polish-American) as well with regards to things E.G. “9/11 Truth”. I have always been greatly perplexed by 9/11 conspiracy theories which state that the attacks were carried out by the US Govt and/or Mossad. I have always taken the more pragmatic approach to it: just go with the mainstream narrative that the attacks were carried out by Al Queda without outside help, and pin the blame of it ultimately on Blowback from US foreign policy in the region. That’s the most pragmatic approach. The concept of caring about what “really happened” never even crossed my mind, and when I did do some cusory research into the topic, I found the idea of it utterly alien and bizarre. The more Anglo or Nordic person would accuse me of “not caring about the facts”, to which I would basically agree– real-world results are more important than The Truth(TM) IMO. Its very easy to say that you only “seek truth” when you’re just a person commenting on Internet forums, and much harder to do if you’re actually in a position of power.
For the Russian, having lost tens of millions of young men in WWII, and having Soviet Communism championed as the force that defeated it (which is mostly true, they did the most fighting), that would make you more patriotic and likely to downplay Soviet atrocities. Especially considering the more nationalistic tone that the Soviets started to take during the Stalin-era and even afterwards E.G. the transition from Trotsky’s “world revolution” to “socialism in one country”. Stalin himself even went as far as to un-ban the Orthodox Church and delivered a radio message on VE day stating something to the effect of “the Germans attempted to annihilate the Slavic race, and we stopped them”
Yes, Russia has lots of social problems, such as abortion, the highest HIV rates (mostly due to IV drug use) in all of Europe, and a degenerate media that promotes culturally corrosive things. But, none of these things are the fault of Putin or the Russian Government. There are only so many things people can do, even people who have power, and had they tried to totally camp down on various forms of degeneracy, that could result in a backlash against the govt and ultimately unseat it from power in some kind of a Color Revolution, that would ultimately be far worse than the status-quo state of affairs.
The fact of the matter is, under Putin, life in Russia has improved *tremendously* by almost every single metric, and with the Western Governments doing his work for him, in banning Netflix, OnlyFans, and other forms of degenerate Western Bloc media, a lot of that will end up falling by the wayside. There’s no way Putin could ban all those things himself and still remain popular, especially amonst the more cosmopolitan cultured Russian youth.
The facts are also that, from all the information we have, Putin is not onboard with the whole Great Reset agenda, or genetically manipulating the populace via experimental mRNA gene therapy. He’s also against Big Gay and the whole Tranny Agenda. So on basically every single issue, he’s on the right side of things.
What also does Obama promising him “more flexibility” even have to do with Putin himself? If you want to accuse Obama of being “weak” towards Russia, assuming that were even a bad thing, what does that have to do with Putin?
So like, I don’t really see what the arguement here is against him. It seems like mostly speculation and armchair general type stuff.
Hello from the UK
Many thanks for your post. Of course the Russia/Ukraine situation is playing out as it should as it follows a pattern of WW2, only 80 years ago. I write about this in general here.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/02/07/timeline-anticipated-events-in-world-war-3/
As regards the situation specifically I consider it more political theatre than reality so I did a piece mainly with humour to expose the real point of it all, the distraction from other evils going on at the moment.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2022/04/05/put-in-boots-the-ukraine-panto/
Pingback: The Enemy of my Enemy: from Ukraine to Uvalde | Winston Scrooge
Pingback: An Intellectually Dishonest Game | Winston Scrooge
Pingback: NATO war on Russia? | Winston Scrooge
Pingback: Left and Right Wokism | Winston Scrooge
Pingback: NATO’s War on Russia: Part II | Winston Scrooge