I. The Five Questions
Five to seven hundred Russian protestors in the Putin Khanate have been arrested, including anti-corruption activist and immigration restrictionist Alexei Navalny - and the 'conservative', 'Southern nationalist' site Occidental Dissent applauds it! Shame!
Here are a number of questions I'd like to ask Hunter Wallace and any other Southern nationalist who supports Putin:
1) How do you reconcile Russian imperialism with a principled support of the Wilsonian right to secession? If you read Ukrainian nationalist and libertarian Roman Skaskiw's blog, you'll understand that Russia - or rather, Muscovy - has always sought to annex smaller nations and incorporate non-Russian ethnicities in an amorphous, all-embracing Russian 'identity'. Muscovy conquers, and then declares to the conquered, 'You hence are Russian'. And woe betide any country, such as Chechnya, which attempts to leave; Russia waged a terrible war in the nineties to keep the Muslim state of Chechnya within the Russian orbit. Putin is Russia's Abraham Lincoln. Now, like the South in 1861, Ukraine wants to leave the Union - the Soviet Union, that is; it wants to flee Russia, which has dominated it for hundreds of years. Shouldn't Southern nationalists support the Ukrainians, the Chechens and the various nationalities and ethnic groups which want to leave Russia? Or does Southern nationalism only endorse secession and independence for me and not for thee...
2) Putin supports immigration and the Islamification and Asianisation of the white parts of Russia (Muscovy, really); like the former Australian prime minister John Howard, he has enabled unlimited non-white immigration while keeping up a pose, successfully, as a 'conservative' and even a 'nationalist'. How can you favour Putin above Alexei Navalny, who wants to keep Russia white? Does Southern nationalism endorse a civic and multi-culti form of nationalism which ends up in white demographic replacement? (Navalny wants visas, i.e., restrictions, for Central Asian immigrants to Muscovy, but the know-nothings at 4Chan take that to mean that he wants free immigration of Central Asians. See here. The idea of visas, i.e., restrictions on illegals, was floated back in 2013, but guess which 'conservative' and 'nationalist' politician quashed it?).
3) Occidental Dissent writer 'Marcus Cicero' sneers at the protestors and believes that they are the work of conspiratorial outside forces; he blames Soros the Jew and supposes that Putin is anti-Semitic and a great enemy of the Jews. But let's look at what at what the protests were about:
Most of the marches were organised without official permission.
TV pictures showed demonstrators chanting "Down with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin!", "Russia without Putin!" and "Putin is a thief!".
Alexei Navalny called for the nationwide protests after he published reports claiming that Mr Medvedev controlled mansions, yachts and vineyards - a fortune that far outstripped his official salary.
Mr Medvedev's spokeswoman called the allegations "propagandistic attacks", but the prime minister himself has not commented on the claims.
The reports included the accusation that Mr Medvedev had a special house for a duck on one of his properties - and on Sunday, some demonstrators held up images of yellow rubber ducks.
Others showed up with their faces painted green, a reference to a recent attack in which Mr Navalny was hit with green liquid.
In Moscow, protesters filled Pushkin square and some climbed the monument to poet Alexander Pushkin shouting "impeachment". Turnout was estimated to be between 7,000 and 8,000, according to police.
The police said 500 protesters had been arrested in the capital alone, but a rights group, OVD Info, put that number at more than 800.
Putin, Medvedev and the rest of the gang have stolen literally billions from the Russian people, have overseen Russian decline - economic, demographic, cultural, you name it - and have done their best to prevent the 'free and fair' elections of the sort that led to the Trump presidency and the leave vote in the Brexit referendum. The question I have is: does Southern nationalism accord the people the right to rebel against politicians whose rule does not accord with standards of justice? Do the people possess the right to rebel, or what German jurists call the right of resistance? Or do they have to lump it...
The Syrians have been living under Ba'athism since 1963, under the rule of the Assad family since 1970, and under Bashar Al-Assad since 2000. That's a long time - longer than Hitler or Mussolini - to be in power, and in the course of the long, long Ba'athist / Assadist reign, one would think it natural that the Assadists and Ba'athists would acquire enemies and earn grievances. But according to the Assadists here in the West (and these are prominent within the Western nationalist and racialist movement), the Syrians at the time of the Arab Spring in 2011 had no right to revolt against Assad, and in fact were the pawns of Zionists, Soros, the CIA and the rest. They lacked, in the terminology of the Right Stuff, 'agency'. Likewise, in the Putinista script, the Russians who are against Putin lack agency; they can't possibly have a genuine grievance against the Putin regime, so therefore they are mind-controlled zombies. But the question is: could Russians have a genuine grievance against Putin, now in his eighteenth year of rule, and do they have the right to revolt?
The ironic thing is that, unlike Navalny and the Arab Springists, I don't consider myself a liberal or a democrat; but I am capable of seeing the other fellow's point of view. Eighteen years under Putin would be like eighteen years under Hilary Clinton - another corrupt, fabulous wealthy, multi-culti and anti-racist elite politician. Just imagine...
4) I see the sneering comments regarding the Ukraine. I want to ask the Putinistas this: the Maidan Square revolt and the ouster of Yanukovych - was that the work of 'Jews' or 'Neo-Nazis'? According to the Putinista Right, the former; according to the Putinista Left, the latter.
But Putin and his regime see themselves as crusaders against all forms of 'Nazi' resurgence. In, fact, the annexation of Crimea was portrayed in Russian and Putinista propaganda as the liberation of Russian land from 'Nazi' occupation, as we see from the Russian propaganda poster below:
5) Russia invaded Crimea, held a phoney referendum in which a 100% of voters supported Russian rule, and then annexed it - in an eerie repeat of what the Soviet Union (well, Russia) did to the Baltic states in 1940. The Balts had a grievance against the Russians for doing that, and for the murdering, torturing and deporting goodness knows how many of them. As part of a reaction to Russian aggression - and Russian communism - Latvians formed a Waffen-SS brigade with a splendid combat record which ought to be celebrated. The question is, what do the Southern nationalists think of the Latvian nationalists' lauding and honouring of this brigade - and of Putin's disdain for it.
Here is an example of the Kremlin's 'antifascist' work and its fight against all forms of 'aggressive nationalism':
VIENNA, March 16. /TASS/. Russia calls on the Latvian authorities to stop supporting Neo-Nazi movements and comply with the country’s OSCE obligations to fight aggressive nationalism, Russia’s OSCE envoy said commenting on the recent march of the Waffen SS veterans in Riga.
"We call on ODIHR (OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights) to pay close attention to the situation in Latvia and call on the country’s authorities to stop supporting or ignoring neo-Nazis and to comply with its OSCE obligations to fight racism, aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism," Alexander Lukashevich said.
"It’s time for Riga to finally admit evident facts - gatherings of SS veterans and their supporters are an affront to the memory of millions of the World War II victims," he said. "It is inadmissible to connive at ultra-radical movements that praise the Nazis and their abettors under the guise of the freedom of speech and assembly."
The diplomat added that ignoring or encouraging neo-Nazi movements "will inevitably lead to a tragedy."
"The examples are around us - for several years, nationalists wearing Nazi symbols have been torturing and killing people for their beliefs in one of our neighbor states," Lukashevich said.
Public events to mark the day of commemoration of the Waffen SS Latvian legion took place in Riga on Thursday. Police officials said about 2,000 people had taken part, including lawmakers and officials.
"Anyway, no statements on the issue were made by Washington, London or Paris. Besides, there has been no reaction from the European Union leadership, which is quick to make harsh statements concerning others," the Russian diplomat said.
"In fact, we are witnessing a de-facto rehabilitation and glorification of those who, as members of the volunteer Waffen SS Latvian legion, committed numerous crimes in Russia, Belarus and Poland and were involved in large-scale punitive actions against hundreds of thousands of civilians, the mass killings of Jews," he went on.
March 16 is an unofficial day of commemoration of the Waffen SS Latvian legion, two divisions of which were set up on the Latvian territory in 1943. The date remained an official commemorative date in Latvia over a period of several years after its breakaway from the USSR, but later the authorities decided to drop it off the official calendar of public commemorative events amid harsh criticism from Russia and in the West.
The Waffen SS Latvian legion had about 150,000 members, Lukashevich said.
"Meanwhile, Latvian authorities have been persistently trying to portray those military criminals as freedom fighters. On the eve of the centenary of the declaration of the Latvian statehood, such neo-Nazi events raise a question of what type of historic achievements are viewed as an example by contemporary Latvia," he said.
II. In Conclusion
I don't expect any answers to these questions, of course. Nationalists have for years been asking them of the Putinistas in the movement and have never, ever received a response; they've been presenting, too, evidence of Putin's pro-immigration policies, etc., and rebutting the propaganda myth that Putin is a 'nationalist' and even a 'conservative' point by point - to no avail. Putinism, like all true religions, has shown itself to be immune to either proof or disproof. Putin bans Holocaust denial? Doesn't matter: he's an opponent of the Jews, and all of his opponents (including myself, including Navalny) must be working on behalf of the Jews. Homosexuality - and homosexual rape and prostitution - rife in the Russian army and navy, and in Russian prisons? Doesn't matter: Putin supports conservative morals and the Russian Orthodox Church, and Putin's Russia is blessedly free of the homosexual plague which afflicts the decadent and liberal West.
My advice to those who oppose Putin is: go your own way and don't expect any assistance from the West. Nationalists who are anti-Putin should not expect support in their cause from the Daily Stormer, VDare, Occident Dissent and the rest of the Putinista outlets; nor should they support, in turn, the 'nationalist' parties which have been corrupted by Putin - Golden Dawn, UKIP, Front National, the NPD and others. If a Putinista 'nationalist' party asks you for assistance in leafleting or some other of activism or electoral campaigning, politely decline their request - turn them away and tell them that you're too busy.
The Ukrainians have learned to rely on themselves, and meet force with force. They've become a militarised nation now, with little to no assistance from Germany and the US, and field a large army of 60,000 battle-hardened soldiers who hold the line against Putin's army of Ingushetis, Dagestanis, Chechens and Central Asian Mongols which has invaded the east of Ukraine and seeks to annex it to Holy Mother Russia. The Ukrainians don't argue, they don't remonstrate, they don't plead for mercy; they fight. Just like the Finns in 1939, they know that the only way to answer Russian aggression is with a bullet.
Putin offends the 'fascist', the 'Nazi' in me, and he also offends the liberal in me - a liberal I didn't even know existed. But perhaps this shouldn't be regarded as liberalism but as a Western love of freedom - one that I hope I share with the Southern nationalist, who I don't think would actually like living in Putin's Russia.
I will conclude with these remarks on Russia from the 19th century French travel writer (and conservative anti-democrat) the Marquis de Custine. His description of the Russia of Tsar Nicholas I sounds a lot like the Russia of Putin, which makes me wonder if Russia can ever be saved.
“Custine eventually discovered that his knack was for travel writing. He wrote a decently received account of a trip to Spain and was encouraged by Honoré de Balzac to write accounts of other “half-European” parts of Europe, like southern Italy and Russia. . . .
He went to Russia looking for arguments against representative government, but he was appalled by autocracy as practiced in Russia, and equally by the Russian people’s apparent collaboration in their own oppression. . . .
He mocked contemporary Russia for its veneer of European civilization hiding an Asiatic soul. . . .
Most of Custine’s mocking was reserved for the Russian nobility and Nicholas I. Custine said Russia’s aristocracy had “just enough of the gloss of European civilization to be ‘spoiled as savages’ but not enough to become cultivated men. They were like ‘trained bears who made you long for the wild ones.’
Custine criticizes Nicholas for the constant spying he ordered and for repressing Poland. Custine had more than one conversation with the Tsar and concluded it was possible that the Tsar only behaved as he did because he felt he had to. “If the Emperor has no more of mercy in his heart than he reveals in his policies, then I pity Russia; if, on the other hand, his true sentiments are really superior to his acts, then I pity the Emperor.” . . .
describes Russia as a horrible domain of obsequious flattery of the Tsar and spying. Custine said the air felt freer the moment one crossed into Prussia. In the middle 20th century, many saw predictions of Joseph Stalin in Custine’s description of Nicholas I. . . .”
“In Russia, everything you notice, and everything that happens around you, has a terrifying uniformity; and the first thought that comes into the traveler’s mind, as he contemplates this symmetry, is that such entire consistency and regularity, so contrary to the natural inclination of mankind, cannot have been achieved and could not survive without violence. . . . Officially, such brutal tyranny is called respect for unity and love of order; and this bitter fruit of despotism appears so precious to the methodical mind that you are told it cannot be purchased at too high a price.”