The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
/
Freedom of Speech

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Richard Spencer and some other Alt Righters wanted to hold an NPI conference in Budapest on October 3-5, 2014 in honor of BASED Hungary.

It… didn’t quite work out as planned.

Richard Spencer and one other person was detained in uncomfortable conditions for a day, and summarily deported back to the US.

Three years later, thanks to a freedom of information request, we know why Hungary did this.

https://www.scribd.com/document/362633444/Hungary-Richard-Spencer-NPI-Records

The fun starts at around page 71. Apparently the BASED Hungarians viewed Richard Spencer and a non-affiliated journalist who was (apparently randomly) detained with him as a “national security threat.”

hungary-ethnically-cleanses-richard-spencer

Considering his own record, methinks Márton Gyöngyösi might just be a hypocrite.

reason-hungary-deports-spencer

Anyhow, in all fairness, the US State Department people – at least, based on the extracts presented here – seemed to be quite conscientious about working to get American citizens out of trouble. There’s nothing you can even complain about there.

Orban’s regime… well, that’s another matter. Here’s the basic gist of the matter:

Joint neoliberal/Alt Right fantasy: BASED Orban as the Horthy to Herr Putler.

Reality: These BASED regimes using the authoritarian power at their disposal to demonstratively crack down on racists, nationalists, and sundry enemies of ZOG to prove their “moderate” credentials to… ZOG.

Maybe ZOG is preferable after all? At least there tends to be more rule of law and due process there.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right, Freedom of Speech, Hungary 
🔊 Listen RSS

moscow-2049

Eurasian Federation, 2049.

Half a year ago I wrote about the absurd legal case against Dmitry Bobrov, a Russian nationalist who was sentenced for using extremist terminology such as “the great Russian people.”

No, I am not even exaggerating, here is the formal conclusion of the court’s “linguistics expert,” Galina Melnik (who is also a professor at Saint Petersburg State University and a published author in American scientific journals):

Linguistic terms are used that constitute evidence of propaganda of the exclusivity of the white race and ethnic Russians. For instance, there are epithets that positively characterize ethnic Russians – “The great Russian people,” “Russians are the most prospective white people,” “planetary significance,” as well as phrases, that negatively characterize other races – “Non-white peoples,” “races of a second order”; various exaggerations; writing words with capital letters so as to give a specific meaning to concepts – White people, Russians, Russian Popular Socialists, Russian Socialism [AK: The names of ethnicities are uncapitalized according to standard Russian grammar]; phrases such as that some peoples “have a phase of obscuration, degradation, and disorientation,” while others are experiencing a “steady growth in the national consciousness.”

I assure you that this sounds as deranged in Russian as it does in English. Apparently, the phrase “great Russian people” is propaganda of exclusivity, the phrase “white people” demeans non-whites, and violating the standard grammatical rules of capitalization in the Russian languages constitutes the most outrageous sort of extremism. American SJWs are nervously smoking in the corner.

The only possibly questionable phrase in the quoted paragraph is “races of a second order.” However, in the article that got Dmitry Bobrov into trouble, “Racial Doctrine of the National Social Initiative” (which is blocked in Russia), it is explicitly stated that the phrase refers to subraces, as opposed to implying a racial hierarchy.

The combination of evolutionary and historical processes led to the fact that now a large White race consists of several subraces, or races of the second order.

Evidently, Galina Melnik did not feel the need to give this vital piece of context in her summary.

This Orwellianism echoes the arguments of another contributing “linguistics expert,” Rezeda Salahutdinova (who has a degree in the joke subject of “Scientific Communism” from Kazan University):

In particular, she declared that the phrase “white race” just by itself fans the flames of hatred, because “they don’t talk like that in modern science” and that the expression “non-white people” is extremist, since it attacks the national dignity of other peoples.

It is heard to describe this theater of the absurd under the guise of a law court. When she was asked, “What specific racial, national, ethnic, social, or other groups were insulted?”, she replied: “All those groups, that are not identified with whites.”

Even though Dmitry Bobrov, representing himself, absolutely destroyed the arguments of the prosecutors’ pocket linguistic experts – court transcripts show even the judge becoming annoyed with their incompetence – he still ended up getting sentenced to 2 years in a penal colony.

In the event, Bobrov went missing on the day the verdict was set to be announced and is now considered to be on the run. Hopefully he is safe in a foreign country.

And to top it all off, citizens of Country 282 have to listen to lectures from Hillary Clinton about how Putler heads the global white supremacist movement and read Washington Post op-eds by affirmative action Kremlinologists on how Russia “disparages black people” and “centers the Russian slav.”

Anyhow.

This Kafkaevschina finally motivated me to run a guide on avoiding Russia’s hate speech laws at my Russian language blog: Руководство по Избежанию 282

Here is a summary in English.

1. Strictly avoid any Nazi symbology.

That includes “ironic Nazism” of the sort that the Alt Right likes to play around with.

But all rules have exceptions.

If you are sufficiently close to the Kremlin you may well write articles along the lines of “Hitler did nothing wrong” (at least up until 1939). You can also organize conferences for foreign Neo-Nazis freaks, such as the International Russian Conservative Forum in 2015; some Galactic Brain in the Kremlin even came up with the idea of inviting German Neo-Nazi Udo Voigt, with his entirely non-ironic demands to return Kaliningrad to Germany.

2. Don’t insult Caucasians.

All countries have differential racial hierarchies for the permissibility of insulting different racial and ethnic groups.

handshakeworthy-russophobia

Handshakeworthy anti-Russian racism from /r/politics.

For instance, ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper thought nothing of saying that Russians are “almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique” in a meeting with NBC journalists – one wonders how long somebody who said anything remotely similar about Jews would last in his job (actually we don’t have to wonder at all). Clearly, Jews, Blacks, the gay race, and the fat race are at the top, while white rednecks and Russians are at the bottom.

In Russia, there is a similar Great Chain of Racial Privilege.

One Russian nationalist, Konstantin Krylov, got convicted under Article 282 for his considered and entirely mild-mannered position on the issue of federal transfers to the Caucasus: “It it time to do away with this strange economic system.” In contrast, Holocaust denial only became illegal in 2014, and authors such as Israel Shamir with a reputation for anti-Semitism haven’t encountered significant problems (unlike his French language publisher, who was faced with a ban of the book he had translated and the prospect of three months in jail). On the other hand, you can’t relax too much: The Stalinist singer Alexander Kharchikov had one of his songs, consisting entirely of folk sayings about Jews, banned for extremism in 2012.

In fairness, Russia does also jail the most cartoonishly extreme Russophobes, such as Boris Stomakhin, who called for terrorist actions against Russian civilians to fight against “Chechen genocide.” In the West and amongst Russian liberals, Stomakhin is considered a prisoner of consciousness, because in their world, supporting terrorism against Russians is far more handshakeworthy than waxing lyrical about “the great Russian people.”

3. Don’t be an oppositionist.

This is so obvious that it hardly needs an explication – but that doesn’t make it into a rock-solid defense either.

For instance, just a few weeks ago, the police searched the offices of the Institute of Russian Civilization, a bookshop that focuses on republishing historical works – not Mein Kampf or Last Will of the Russian Fascist, but entirely mainstream texts in the Russian conservative and theological tradition, many of whom Putin has himself cited in his speeches (e.g. Berdyaev, Danilevsky, Ilyin, Karamzin, Pobedonostsev, Soloviev, Trubetzkoy, Khomyakov).

Apart from blocking the oppositionist Sputnik i Pogrom, Russian censorship authority also blocks the website of the Russian Imperial Movement, even though it is Orthodox-monarchic and entirely non-racialist in character, and even went to the trouble of advancing Russia’s geopolitical goals by sending a batallion to the Donbass in 2014.

4. You can’t be pro-Ukrainian.

You can if you’re a liberal – in that case, that’s actually expected of you – but you can’t if you’re a nationalist, especially with respect to the Crimea, for which there is a “separatism” clause on the lawbooks.

5. Don’t appear on law enforcement’s radar.

Possibly what really did Bobrov in is that he has a previous (and justified) conviction from back in the 2000s, when he headed the Schulz-88 Neo-Nazi gang that beat up immigrants. The current conviction is unjust, not only because this time round he literally did nothing wrong, but because the state is essentially sending violent Neo-Nazis a message: Regardless of whether your active is legal or illegal, violence or non-violent, we are still going to lock you up the same.

But let’s assume you’re not already “marked” by dint of previous legal troubles.

Here’s something you should bear in mind: The various Russian silovik agencies are not staffed by especially bright or conscientious people – in the case of Roskomnadzor or “Center E” (police anti-extremism division), their priorities are to fulfill their monthly quotas for finding “extremists” and get their bonuses for doing so. As such, they spend much of their time in the rich and easily accessible hunting grounds of VKontakte, which remains Russia’s most popular social network. As such, it would do well for “politicals” to limit their VKontakte posting to cat memes, while maintaining the bulk of their “meaningful” presence on Facebook and Twitter.

very-extremist-material

NSFR (Not Safe For Russia): What got Andrey Voronin in trouble just a few days ago.

Incidentally, this applies likewise for Westerners. Since nationalism is an almost purely “export” product so far as the Putlerreich is concerned, The Daily Stormer has been able to maintain an uninterrupted presence on VKontakte – even as Russians on the platform get in legal trouble for reposting historical illustrations that happen to feature a swastika.

6. Pay your mite to ZOG.

Liberals have an admirable tendency to stick up for each other, thanks to their higher IQs and levels of trust.

Nationalists are the opposite.

Whereas a liberal in Bobrov’s position would have gotten no end of attention from (predominantly liberal) human rights organizations, hardly any nationalist website anybody apart from Sputnik i Pogrom even bothered to highlight his case.

This problem is a very hard one and frankly the dearth of human capital is the single most crippling problem for conservatives and nationalists well nigh everywhere.

It is ironic that if anybody is going to seriously represent and advocate for you if you get in trouble, it will likely be a liberal with an idealistic commitment to free speech.

Therefore, the least that you can do is to pay at least symbolic fealty to ZOG – for instance, by affirming your commitment to free speech and human rights – so that when you do get sent off to the Gulag, the liberal sphere – which has at least ten times as much media influence as the nationalists – can’t just dismiss you by saying that this sort of world is what you were fighting for anyway.

7. Don’t listen to all this advice.

Doing so will just make you a mindless Kremlin propagandist. They’re a dime dozen anyway, and you probably won’t get rich even if you stand out, since all the most lucrative positions have long been carved up anyway.

Besides, as the host of our ROGPR podcast Kirill Nesterov acerbically noted, at the rate the wheels are coming off the Kremlin’s prosecution machine, it won’t be long before people start going to jail for justifying the return of the Crimea – and we’re not even entirely sure that this will happen after Putin loses power.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Freedom of Speech, Hate Speech, Law, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

If legal policy towards human biodiversity/race realism/racist hate speech (cross out as per your ideological preferences) ranges from mildly to severely repressive across Europe and Canada, then in Russia it can best be described as schizophrenic.

There is more freedom of association than in Europe or even the US: You can specify “Slavs Only”/”No Caucasians” when renting out your apartment with no consequences, as Muscovites do. It trolls the West by accomodating far right conferences, such as the one in Saint-Petersburg in 2015. Moderate nationalists such as Egor Kholmogorov write op-eds for Komsomolskaya Pravda; even under Trump, I don’t see Steve Sailer penning articles for the NYT anytime soon.

On the other hand, remarkably trivial “offenses” may potentially get you in hot water. The classic case might be the Article 282 case against Konstantin Krylov, which unlike Pussy Riot is of course completely unknown in the West, who called on the Kremlin to “end this strange economic model” (sic), the “model” in question referring to Russian monetary transfers to the backwards Caucasus republics. For this act of fascist extremism he was sentenced to 120 hours of community service, though the verdict was overturned in 2014.

More recently, there appeared what might be a potential contender for sheer absurdity.

I do not know much about Dmitry Bobrov apart from the fact that he appears to be some sort of Russian nationalist. He is currently in trouble for the following propaganda of race hatred and extremism:

Today there has been another hearing in the case against me for the phrase “the great Russian people” and humiliation of West Europeans by the phrase “Western European peoples are currently in the phase of obscuration” (which is an almost identical retelling of Lev Gumilev).

They questioned a specialist who examined the text for extremism. That woman asked the court to remove “outsiders,” who were two girls from the human rights organization “Civil Control,” who decided to attend the hearing as observers. She stated that she is categorically opposed to the public hearing about her participation Article 282 cases, and the MSM and social media writing about it… The court refused her request. As for myself, I have decided to help make her slightly more famous.

Please meet: Rezeda Halyafutdinovna Salahutdinova, former associate professor of the Faculty of Sociology at Saint Petersburg State University. She graduated from the Faculty of “Scientific Communism” at Kazan University. Over many years, she has provided many such expertises against opponents of the regime.

In the Soviet Union, “scientific communism” had a status similar to that of the Womyn’s/African-American/LGBTQX “Studies” courses in the West – everybody knew it was a pseudoscientific scam, but you were still advised not to say that out loud. But in private, achieving perfect scores on your mandatory “scientific communism” course was considered to be a smirch on your academic record by real professors in science and mathematics.

So what we have here is a clear-cut transition from the pseudoscience of “scientific communism” to the pseudoscience of modern sociology. Very logical.

A search of her name confirms that Rezeda Salahutdinova does indeed have a “reputation” in certain corners of Runet for participating in Article 282 cases. “Rezeda Salahutdinova” currently only has eight Google mentions in English. Let us help Rezeda Salahutdinova become a bit more famous in the Anglosphere too. Saint Petersburg State University is hardly a provincial community college, so it would be good to let any foreign collaborators know of her impressive pedigree in punishing thoughtcrime (too bad they’d probably approve, but that’s another matter). You are welcome, Rezeda Salahutdinova.

In particular, she declared that the phrase “white race” just by itself fans the flames of hatred, because “they don’t talk like that in modern science” and that the expression “non-white people” is extremist, since it attacks the national dignity of other peoples.

It is heard to describe this theater of the absurd under the guise of a law court. When she was asked, “What specific racial, national, ethnic, social, or other groups were insulted?”, she replied: “All those groups, that are not identified with whites.”

No, this makes no more sense in Russian than in English.

Let me see if I get this straight: The white race doesn’t exists, but not belonging to it is an insult?

Since Article 282 specifically applies to hatred against specific groups, I tried to force her to clarify herself:

Dmitry Bobkov: “Could you please clarify whether there exists a racial, ethnic, religious, or social group “everyone, who isn’t white”?”

Rezeda Salahutdinova: “From the point of view of Gobineau’s racist theory, all non whites are inferior…”

DB: “Could you please clarify whether there exists a racial, ethnic, religious, or social group “everyone, who isn’t white”?”

RS: “In our many-national country it is very important that hatred and enmity not divide peoples of different nationalities…”

DB: “Could you please clarify whether there exists a racial, ethnic, religious, or social group “everyone, who isn’t white”?”

RS: “Gobineau’s theory states that representatives of the white race participated in the creation of the great civilization of ancient Egypt, however…”

DB: “Could you please clarify whether there exists a racial, ethnic, religious, or social group “everyone, who isn’t white”?”

RS: “It should be noted that the growth of national consciousness on Russian territory can be observed across all nationalities, and not just ethnic Russians…”

DB: “Could you please clarify whether there exists a racial, ethnic, religious, or social group “everyone, who isn’t white”?”

RS: “As a representative of modern science, I can confirm that a conceptual analysis of this text speaks to its extremist slant…”

DB: “Could you please clarify whether there exists a racial, ethnic, religious, or social group “everyone, who isn’t white”?”

The judge speaks up, evidently annoyed. “Could you please answer that specific question?”

RS: : “Taking into account the many-national and multiracial character of the Russian Federation, the danger of such teachings is that peoples living on the territory of this country are subjected to an analysis based on a racial typology…”

DB: “Could you please clarify whether there exists a racial, ethnic, religious, or social group “everyone, who isn’t white”?”

What’s with the Gobineau obsession, anyway? I mean it is The Current Year for crying out loud! She doesn’t appear to have even left the era of Stephen Jay Gould and The Mismeasure of Man.

Anyhow, it would be interesting to know how this case turns out.

It’s encouraging that the judge, at least, appears to be sane. This is fortunate, because cases like Bobrov’s get scant attention at best from Russia’s homegrown HR activists, while Western critics of our glorious Putlerreich (/s) only ever whine that Russia isn’t doing enough against supposed racists.

 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Freedom of Speech, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

Here is the CPJ:

New York, September 16, 2015–The Committee to Protect Journalists deplores a decree signed by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko today which, according to a copy viewed by CPJ, bans at least 41 international journalists and bloggers from Ukraine for one year. The journalists and bloggers were among 388 people named as representing an “actual or potential threat to national interests, national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” according to news reports… The 34 journalists and seven bloggers named in the ban come from Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The decree, which was published on the presidential website, does not explain what press coverage Ukrainian authorities deem as a threat to national security. Three BBC journalists including Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg were banned.

Irish journalist Bryan MacDonald has the most comprehensive writeup at RT.

In total, around 400 new persons and 100 Russian enterprises – though not including Poroshenko’s Roshen chocolate factory in Lipetsk – have been sanctioned and barred from entering the country.

Apart from various Russian politicians and celebrities like Kobzon, the list also includes tons of Western journalists, European politicians, and an American businessman.

steven-rosenberg-evil-kremlin-agent-who-wants-to-destroy-ukraine

The standard reason apparently given to all or most of them (can’t be bothered reading the whole thing) is “creating an actual and/or potential threat to national interests, national security, and the territorial integrity of Ukraine,” “promotion of terrorist activities and/or violation of the rights and freedoms of people and citizens, the interests of the state,” the “destruction of jobs” (so now we know who’s responsible for Ukraine’s descent into Gabon: Russian journalists like the BBC’s Steve Rosenberg!), and various other grave sins.

Now in my opinion all states have the right to exercise control over their sovereign banners. Russia itself has started denying visas to particularly hostile journalists. The US has a habit of denying visas to “unfriendly” journalists, especially uppity leftist Latin American and Palestinian ones, though for some reason that gets much less attention than Russian bans in the Western media. Australian feminists don’t want controversial foreign citizens teaching game to their less seductively successful menfolk. More power to them! And, likewise, Ukraine as a state – even if not a particularly civilized one that serves any useful purpose – has the right to ban whosoever it so wants.

It’s not like there aren’t multitudes of real human rights violations happening in Ukraine, anyway. There are literally thousands of political prisoners, including journalists like Ruslan Kotsaba whose only crime was to verbally oppose conscription. And those are the lucky ones: Some, like Oles Buzina, have been murdered outright by Neo-Nazi death squads who enjoy implicit backing from the regime. None of this has really drawn any attention let alone condemnation from prominent Western journalists and politicians, so one can hardly expect them to protest mere visa bans directed against the Russian aggressors.

Expect that these visa bans also happened to affect Western journalists, including three journalists at the BBC. While the BBC is relatively impartial, even going so far as to question the official narrative on the Euromaidan massacre, there is no questios that its general sympathies lie with the Maidan and that a significant percentage of their journalists are overtly hostile to Russia. They also banned two Spanish journalists. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to have visited Ukraine anyway, since they are currently missing in Syria and presumed captured by ISIS. Nonetheless, even from Islamic State captivity, they manage to continue to exercise a threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and employment statistics of Ukraine. Most impressive!

This is all far worse than just scummy conduct. When even your sympathizers are either criticizing you or plotting how to best spin the story so as to not to have the regime come off in too bad of a light – indeed, when just a few hours later you have to backtrack and let the BBC journalists (though apparently not anyone else) continue visiting Ukraine after all just – it’s a downright PR disaster.

Which really says something about the quality of Ukrainian decision-making, because in the current Cold War 2 atmosphere the propaganda war is entirely Kiev’s to lose.

There are two factors that help explain this. First, for all its fervent portrayal of itself as a European state, and its cargo cult like destruction of Soviet monuments and renaming of Communist themed streets (at the expense of local people – you’re welcome!), Ukraine remains a deeply and innately sovok state. Hence the stereotypically Soviet like methods that Ukraine uses to “affirm” its European identity. Would any country that knew itself to be a real European state, as opposed to Gabon-with-snow, use such cack-handed methods? Probably not. With people as with nation-states, it is those most loudly proclaiming themselves to be anti-sovoks who tend to be the most sovok of them all.

Second, it points to the dearth of human capital in Ukrainian state agencies. Now bureaucrats in Ukraine or for that matter Russia have never been worth writing home about, but in post-Maidan Ukraine we really appear to be approaching some kind of rock bottom. I suspect the SBU folks charged with compiling this list, after coming up with some obvious and “legitimate” candidates, could not be bothered with further research and just started assigning people at random based on them fulfilling some basic criterion, e.g. keyword searches indicating that they had once said something remotely uncharitable about Ukraine.

But I for one am not an uncharitable person, so I would like to do my small part to help them out: I propose they include me in any future sanctions, as well as the bloggers and journalists under the “Ukraine” tab on my blog’s sidebar. That’s eight people, or 2% of any future 400-person quota. You would at least save yourselves some embarassment, and nobody will really be materially affected by this – the only country on the Pontic steppe that I at any rate would conceivably visit while the junta remains in power is Novorossiya, and a Ukraine visa ban would be something I’d be otherwise happy to put on my CV.

Any svidomy-leaning readers – please feel free to forwards this to the SBU. No need for MVD head Anton Gerashchenko to bother identifying me by IP!

 
No Items Found
Anatoly Karlin
About Anatoly Karlin

I am a blogger, thinker, and businessman in the SF Bay Area. I’m originally from Russia, spent many years in Britain, and studied at U.C. Berkeley.

One of my tenets is that ideologies tend to suck. As such, I hesitate about attaching labels to myself. That said, if it’s really necessary, I suppose “liberal-conservative neoreactionary” would be close enough.

Though I consider myself part of the Orthodox Church, my philosophy and spiritual views are more influenced by digital physics, Gnosticism, and Russian cosmism than anything specifically Judeo-Christian.