The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Forum
Extremists Turn to a Leader to Protect Western Values: Vladimir Putin

As the founder of the Traditionalist Worker Party, an American group that aims to preserve the privileged place of whiteness in Western civilization and fight “anti-Christian degeneracy,” Matthew Heimbach knows whom he envisions as the ideal ruler: the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.

“Russia is our biggest inspiration,” Mr. Heimbach said. “I see President Putin as the leader of the free world.”

Throughout the presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump mystified many on the left and in the foreign policy establishment with his praise for Mr. Putin and his criticism of the Obama administration’s efforts to isolate and punish Russia for its actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. But what seemed inexplicable when Mr. Trump first expressed his admiration for the Russian leader seems, in retrospect, to have been a shrewd dog whistle to a small but highly motivated part of his base.

For Mr. Heimbach is far from alone in his esteem for Mr. Putin. Throughout the collection of white ethnocentrists, nationalists, populists and neo-Nazis that has taken root on both sides of the Atlantic, Mr. Putin is widely revered as a kind of white knight: a symbol of strength, racial purity and traditional Christian values in a world under threat from Islam, immigrants and rootless cosmopolitan elites.

“I’ve always seen Russia as the guardian at the gate, as the easternmost outpost of our people,” said Sam Dickson, a white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan lawyer who frequently speaks at gatherings of the so-called alt-right, a far-right fringe movement that embraces white nationalism and a range of racist and anti-immigrant positions. “They are our barrier to the Oriental invasion of our homeland and the great protector of Christendom. I admire the Russian people. They are the strongest white people on earth.”

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right, Vladimir Putin 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. It’s a pity that both the NYT and Heimbach feel the need to dress up their rhetoric with “freedom” or “Western values”.

    Neither freedom or western values are as important as social hierarchy and ethnic nationalism. In fact, western values, both classical and modern, undermine nationalist ideals. Without the west’s delusions over humanism, egalitarianism, and freedom, the left would have no leg to stand on.

    • Replies: @Bobzilla

    Without the west’s delusions over humanism, egalitarianism, and freedom, the left would have no leg to stand on.
     
    But that's the point. These things did not spring from traditional Western values and culture. (When you speak of "freedom" I take that to mean radical individual freedom at the expense of the greater good of the group / whole.)
    , @Pseudonymic Handle
    Diversity will best preserved by ethnic states.
    Everyone should be happy with ethnic states.
    As a bonus, one could also create states for gays, for lesbians, for zoophiles, for mixed colors or ethnicities. Enjoy!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/forum/extremists-turn-to-a-leader-to-protect-western-values-vladimir-putin/#comment-1671889
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Just the other week the Russian government fired its Economics Minister Ulyukayev
    for corruption. Honourable nations and honourable leaders behave honourably.
    Your assignment NYT is to compare and contrast that behaviour with the US government and it’s rulers’ behaviours regarding the corruption around Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/15/russias-putin-fires-alexei-ulyukayev-as-economy-minister-over-bribery-charge.html

  3. But what seemed inexplicable when Mr. Trump first expressed his admiration for the Russian leader seems, in retrospect, to have been a shrewd dog whistle to a small but highly motivated part of his base.

    Seems inexplicable to a fucking moron. In retrospect you are still lost in the fog. Putin is a patriot and a statesman. Obama is a traitor and a murderer. See the difference? Y’all have declared war on the white working people of America. But your intentions are evil regarding all of the un-rich. And war you will surely have, much to your regret.

    • Replies: @sturbain
    "Seems inexplicable to a fucking moron."

    Thanks a lot - you made me spray coffee.

    I was going to say the same thing in a paragraph. You were more succinct.

    , @Anon
    "Putin is a patriot and a statesman. Obama is a traitor and a murderer."

    This is true.

    But what is most pathetic about Obama is he is a double traitor.

    Obama never represented America. He's a globalist agent. On that score, he is no patriot.
    Even so, one could argue he betrayed white America out of loyalty to black America. Then, he would at least be a patriot to black nationalism. But in fact he betrayed both white America and black America. He didn't do anything for blacks as he was too busy serving Wall Street, promoting homomania, flattering pampered feminists, and stoking endless gender identities.
    This explosion of 'identity' politics was bound to be threatening to blacks. Before 'gender identity' craze, the only identities that mattered were whites, Jews, women, and blacks. Hispanics grew in power, but it's hard to name one Hispanic spokesman or politician. Asians are even more obscure. But with the rise of homos, things got weird. If it had just been homos, identity politics could have been contained. It would be just one more identity. But homos branded themselves as LGBT(though DFBT is more accurate), and that unleashed endless new letters. Facebook decided there are 50 genders. So, blacks now had to compete with 50, 60, 70, or whatever identities, most of which were totally fantastical. College politics turned into increasing numbers of 'gender identities' hogging all the spotlight and calling for 'safe spaces'. Obama went along with this, and this eclipsed black power. Since both LGBTQXYZ, etc and blacks are on the 'left' and since 'black president' supported this craze, blacks bit their lips and played along.

    The rise of BLM was, in many ways, a reaction to gentrification and gender-ification. Of course, urban Libs and gender-manders claim to support BLM and march together against 'racist', 'homophobic', 'misogynistic', 'xenophobic', 'Islamophobic', and 'antisemitic' whitey --- no wonder the MSM have hyped Alt Right as the New Bogeyman for KKKrazy Glue --- , but, in fact, BLM targets have mostly been Liberal colleges, Liberal cities, and etc. Blacks are marching and screaming because they are frustrated and angry that the 'progressive' movement cares more about the homo 'rainbow' than about the black fist. (Of course, we know why. More fun to wave homo flags at prancing fairies than be slammed in the face with a black fist.) White Libs claim to support BLM(something they are really scared to death of) in hope that BLM will go beat up 'bad whites' than 'good whites', who would be themselves.

    Since Obama is a black and a Democrat, blacks have gone easy on him. And Obama, realizing that blacks are really frustrated with him for caring more for homos and illegals, decided to compensate in his last two yrs by throwing a bone at the black community. He thought he could appease them, but it just gave blacks a reason to go nuts all over. BLM got really ugly. If you let homos and trannies do as they please, they bring forth decadence. It is ugly but cities don't burn and people don't get killed. But if you let blacks do as they please, it means destruction. Not only ugly but dangerous.

    The unspoken fact is blacks really feel cheated by Obama who, in his 8 yrs, spent most of his time sucking up to Zionists, homos, and the immigration lobby.

    Take his notion of the Dreamers. The DREAM was a brand that used to be owned by blacks. When MLK spoke of his dream, he meant that the Negro had been denied the American Dream. MLK's movement was specifically black. The new Dream would be blacks finding their place in America.

    But over time, the MLK brand has come to be invoked for everything. Homos invoked MLK to get 'married'. Trannies invoke MLK to go wee wee in women's room. Illegals invoke MLK to trespass into America and get all the freebies. And Obama allowed this to happen. And a lot of these Neo-Dreams do nothing for blacks. MLK-ism has been hijacked by other groups.

    Obama betrayed both white America and black America. He a fool.

    But he don't care. He's gonna have over $100 million in a few yrs just from speeches.

    Indeed, someone should put up a Obama Money Counter as soon as he leaves office. This counter will add up all the money he will be making by giving speeches to big big donors all over the world.

    In contrast to Obama, Putin(whatever his flaws, and there are many) is a real national leader who represents his people and culture. He's not just some puppet of globalism. Obama is Pit Pat of Globo-Chem.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uco5Ed-5y2U
  4. PROGRESSIVES TURN TO A LEADER TO PROTECT WESTERN VALUES: CARLOS SLIM HELU

    Millions of NYT journalists, BLM activists, Wall Street workers, Neoliberal economists and other Progressives surprisingly view Mexican Oligarch and one-time Lebanese Fascist Party operative Carlos Slim Helu as the leader best suited to protect western values.
    “By promoting Mexican immigration into America, he is preserving the western character of America. Hey, gringo, you’d rather have a Mexican than a Somali or a Syrian”, said Gustavo Arellano, a California university janitor.
    ” I regard Mr Slim as the leader of the Free World”, enthused Genius T. Coates, an African-American librarian.

    ( One article never to be published in the NYT )

  5. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Wow, did the NYT just give the alt right/KKK/white supremacists a platform?

    /sarcasm

    Seems like they’re going to go find every “deplorable” group they can find just to show all of those who voted for DJT how deplorable they really are. NYT is so morally superior. You can just feel it.

  6. The NYT: Newest click bait site on the web. It’s the last business strategy for the rag Pinch Sulzberger has all but destroyed.

  7. @WorkingClass

    But what seemed inexplicable when Mr. Trump first expressed his admiration for the Russian leader seems, in retrospect, to have been a shrewd dog whistle to a small but highly motivated part of his base.
     
    Seems inexplicable to a fucking moron. In retrospect you are still lost in the fog. Putin is a patriot and a statesman. Obama is a traitor and a murderer. See the difference? Y'all have declared war on the white working people of America. But your intentions are evil regarding all of the un-rich. And war you will surely have, much to your regret.

    “Seems inexplicable to a fucking moron.”

    Thanks a lot – you made me spray coffee.

    I was going to say the same thing in a paragraph. You were more succinct.

  8. @Jason Liu
    It's a pity that both the NYT and Heimbach feel the need to dress up their rhetoric with "freedom" or "Western values".

    Neither freedom or western values are as important as social hierarchy and ethnic nationalism. In fact, western values, both classical and modern, undermine nationalist ideals. Without the west's delusions over humanism, egalitarianism, and freedom, the left would have no leg to stand on.

    Without the west’s delusions over humanism, egalitarianism, and freedom, the left would have no leg to stand on.

    But that’s the point. These things did not spring from traditional Western values and culture. (When you speak of “freedom” I take that to mean radical individual freedom at the expense of the greater good of the group / whole.)

  9. The idiotic demonization of Russia continues.
    “Dog whistle,” what a load of malarkey. As embarrassing as it is to see a venerable publication like the NYT resort to such a moronic SJW cliche, it’s further proof that the MSM is doomed.
    Get with the times, Gray Lady. Thanks to the alt-right, we can throw away our dog whistles and say exactly what we mean.

  10. It’s a pity that both the NYT and Heimbach feel the need to dress up their rhetoric with “freedom” or “Western values”.

    Neither freedom or western values are as important as social hierarchy and ethnic nationalism. In fact, western values, both classical and modern, undermine nationalist ideals. Without the west’s delusions over humanism, egalitarianism, and freedom, the left would have no leg to stand on.

    Freedom’s pretty useful. It’s a White specialty. Non-whites don’t understand it, and tend to undermine and vote against it. It’s the most compelling argument against anti-Freedom laws (so-called “anti-discrimination” laws). White people have an inherent love of Freedom.

    And of course, Freedom owes a great deal to Hierarchy. Pretty much every Freedom started as Freedom for the top of the hierarchy. This is only natural. E.g., the most natural place for rights for women to begin is at the top, where, for example, a nobleman might have only daughters, and fight to have his female heir recognized.

    Ethnopatriotism is wedded to Freedom, as well. Globalists are the enemies of both.

  11. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Phew, reads like something out of Bob Avakian’s publication. Have things really deteriorated so much at these once well regarded papers? Since the election the propaganda hate campaign has really gone into high gear-not that it wasn’t high prior. What’s the point of all this? I see where they try to tie the Russians into the picture no matter how tenuous. Were they planning a future confrontation with the Russians with Clinton as their war leader and it now seems to have been put on hold?

  12. @Verymuchalive
    PROGRESSIVES TURN TO A LEADER TO PROTECT WESTERN VALUES: CARLOS SLIM HELU

    Millions of NYT journalists, BLM activists, Wall Street workers, Neoliberal economists and other Progressives surprisingly view Mexican Oligarch and one-time Lebanese Fascist Party operative Carlos Slim Helu as the leader best suited to protect western values.
    "By promoting Mexican immigration into America, he is preserving the western character of America. Hey, gringo, you'd rather have a Mexican than a Somali or a Syrian", said Gustavo Arellano, a California university janitor.
    " I regard Mr Slim as the leader of the Free World", enthused Genius T. Coates, an African-American librarian.


    ( One article never to be published in the NYT )

    LOL. Exactly.

  13. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Sheesh.

    Heimbach is some Malt-Right Guy (he has a beer belly) who mulls around in a small town in Indiana. He has a tiny insignificant following, and even most Alt Rightists ignore him as a goofball. Spencer banned him from NPI meeting a year ago.

    Few would even know about Heimbach, but NYT is making a big stink about him to tie Putin to Neo-Nazism.

    But in fact, what has Heimbach accomplished except get himself a beer belly?

    In contrast, Nuland and other Zionists stirred up Neo-Nazis with guns and bombs in Ukraine and toppled a real government, compelling Russia to annex Crimea WITH THE FULL SUPPORT OF CRIMEANS. But then, NTY, the ‘gay lady’, has been telling us that NYT invaded Crimea. Its narrative on South Ossetia is also Russian ‘aggression’.

    At any rate, why shouldn’t people on the right not turn to Orthodox Faith?

    What has become of most churches in the West? They offer ‘gay marriage’, promote mass invasion, offer standup comic routines for sermons, and other silliness. Btw, if homo agenda is secular, why are homos trying to turn churches into altars to the holy anus?

    NTY is so full of shi*.

    By the way, what the NYT should ask is why so many American Evangelicals are into Zionism, a tribalist ideology of an ethnic group that mostly despises white Christians(and pushes policies that have destroyed countless Arab Christians in Iraq and Syria)?

  14. I’m always amused when deluded White Nationalists uphold Russia as some sort of bastion of European Whiteness. The big demographic churning events in the Russosphere over the last century – the industrialization, World War II, the demographic dip in Russia following the Soviet collapse, and the more recent wave of immigration to Russia from the former Soviet republics during the Russian renaissance, have pretty much removed ethnic Russian-ness as a condition of political Russian-ness. Russia has the largest Muslim population in Europe and the largest Mosque in Europe opened its doors in Moscow in 2015. What Russia provides is an example of is multi-ethnic political integration, something that western Europe and the US seem unable to solve. Russia’s experience with ethnic nationalism has been that it is corrosive and sometimes deadly. There is no workable alternative to suppressing ethnic nationalism and replacing it with political, i.e. civic and economic, nationalism, if a society is to function coherently. That seems to be a lesson that a big chunk of western Europe and the US seem determined to learn the hard way.

    • Replies: @BucephalusXYZ
    This really strikes me as on the mark, and worth pondering.
    My understanding of Russia may be flawed, but I do think about it sometimes, and here I am thinking out loud.
    It does seem that ethnic Russianness is, in some sense, at the core of political Russia, just as it was in the USSR (no matter the dogma).
    And it does seem that some sort of acknowledgement of Orthodox Christianity is now taken as a component of Russian ethnicity..
    But it doesn't seem that "whiteness" has any overwhelming significance in Russia (even if there may be thugs in Moscow who sometimes harass non-whites, to bad effect). Many non-Russian ethnic groups live in the Russian Federation, some "white" and some "non-white".
    It seems you can be a "non-white" (in the view of white nationalists), like Sergey Shoygu, and reach the inner realms of power, so long as you embrace the system.
    Another "non-white" is chess-man Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, ruler of Kalmykia. A strange bird, perhaps, but he seems to be a Russian in full standing, inasmuch as he seems to have ruled his land in line with the dictats from above.
    And then there is Ramzan Kadyrov. He seems pretty white to me, even if he seems to be a Muslim authoritarian, not so different from Bashar al-Assad. And he seems to have pretty clearly attached himself to political Russia, even if his Muslimness separates him from ethnic Russia.
    Matthew Heimbach notwithstanding, I think you'd have a much diminished Russia if you removed all these guys, and others like them. Reality turns out to be sort of complex.
  15. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @WorkingClass

    But what seemed inexplicable when Mr. Trump first expressed his admiration for the Russian leader seems, in retrospect, to have been a shrewd dog whistle to a small but highly motivated part of his base.
     
    Seems inexplicable to a fucking moron. In retrospect you are still lost in the fog. Putin is a patriot and a statesman. Obama is a traitor and a murderer. See the difference? Y'all have declared war on the white working people of America. But your intentions are evil regarding all of the un-rich. And war you will surely have, much to your regret.

    “Putin is a patriot and a statesman. Obama is a traitor and a murderer.”

    This is true.

    But what is most pathetic about Obama is he is a double traitor.

    Obama never represented America. He’s a globalist agent. On that score, he is no patriot.
    Even so, one could argue he betrayed white America out of loyalty to black America. Then, he would at least be a patriot to black nationalism. But in fact he betrayed both white America and black America. He didn’t do anything for blacks as he was too busy serving Wall Street, promoting homomania, flattering pampered feminists, and stoking endless gender identities.
    This explosion of ‘identity’ politics was bound to be threatening to blacks. Before ‘gender identity’ craze, the only identities that mattered were whites, Jews, women, and blacks. Hispanics grew in power, but it’s hard to name one Hispanic spokesman or politician. Asians are even more obscure. But with the rise of homos, things got weird. If it had just been homos, identity politics could have been contained. It would be just one more identity. But homos branded themselves as LGBT(though DFBT is more accurate), and that unleashed endless new letters. Facebook decided there are 50 genders. So, blacks now had to compete with 50, 60, 70, or whatever identities, most of which were totally fantastical. College politics turned into increasing numbers of ‘gender identities’ hogging all the spotlight and calling for ‘safe spaces’. Obama went along with this, and this eclipsed black power. Since both LGBTQXYZ, etc and blacks are on the ‘left’ and since ‘black president’ supported this craze, blacks bit their lips and played along.

    The rise of BLM was, in many ways, a reaction to gentrification and gender-ification. Of course, urban Libs and gender-manders claim to support BLM and march together against ‘racist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘Islamophobic’, and ‘antisemitic’ whitey — no wonder the MSM have hyped Alt Right as the New Bogeyman for KKKrazy Glue — , but, in fact, BLM targets have mostly been Liberal colleges, Liberal cities, and etc. Blacks are marching and screaming because they are frustrated and angry that the ‘progressive’ movement cares more about the homo ‘rainbow’ than about the black fist. (Of course, we know why. More fun to wave homo flags at prancing fairies than be slammed in the face with a black fist.) White Libs claim to support BLM(something they are really scared to death of) in hope that BLM will go beat up ‘bad whites’ than ‘good whites’, who would be themselves.

    Since Obama is a black and a Democrat, blacks have gone easy on him. And Obama, realizing that blacks are really frustrated with him for caring more for homos and illegals, decided to compensate in his last two yrs by throwing a bone at the black community. He thought he could appease them, but it just gave blacks a reason to go nuts all over. BLM got really ugly. If you let homos and trannies do as they please, they bring forth decadence. It is ugly but cities don’t burn and people don’t get killed. But if you let blacks do as they please, it means destruction. Not only ugly but dangerous.

    The unspoken fact is blacks really feel cheated by Obama who, in his 8 yrs, spent most of his time sucking up to Zionists, homos, and the immigration lobby.

    Take his notion of the Dreamers. The DREAM was a brand that used to be owned by blacks. When MLK spoke of his dream, he meant that the Negro had been denied the American Dream. MLK’s movement was specifically black. The new Dream would be blacks finding their place in America.

    But over time, the MLK brand has come to be invoked for everything. Homos invoked MLK to get ‘married’. Trannies invoke MLK to go wee wee in women’s room. Illegals invoke MLK to trespass into America and get all the freebies. And Obama allowed this to happen. And a lot of these Neo-Dreams do nothing for blacks. MLK-ism has been hijacked by other groups.

    Obama betrayed both white America and black America. He a fool.

    But he don’t care. He’s gonna have over $100 million in a few yrs just from speeches.

    Indeed, someone should put up a Obama Money Counter as soon as he leaves office. This counter will add up all the money he will be making by giving speeches to big big donors all over the world.

    In contrast to Obama, Putin(whatever his flaws, and there are many) is a real national leader who represents his people and culture. He’s not just some puppet of globalism. Obama is Pit Pat of Globo-Chem.

  16. @Thirdeye
    I'm always amused when deluded White Nationalists uphold Russia as some sort of bastion of European Whiteness. The big demographic churning events in the Russosphere over the last century - the industrialization, World War II, the demographic dip in Russia following the Soviet collapse, and the more recent wave of immigration to Russia from the former Soviet republics during the Russian renaissance, have pretty much removed ethnic Russian-ness as a condition of political Russian-ness. Russia has the largest Muslim population in Europe and the largest Mosque in Europe opened its doors in Moscow in 2015. What Russia provides is an example of is multi-ethnic political integration, something that western Europe and the US seem unable to solve. Russia's experience with ethnic nationalism has been that it is corrosive and sometimes deadly. There is no workable alternative to suppressing ethnic nationalism and replacing it with political, i.e. civic and economic, nationalism, if a society is to function coherently. That seems to be a lesson that a big chunk of western Europe and the US seem determined to learn the hard way.

    This really strikes me as on the mark, and worth pondering.
    My understanding of Russia may be flawed, but I do think about it sometimes, and here I am thinking out loud.
    It does seem that ethnic Russianness is, in some sense, at the core of political Russia, just as it was in the USSR (no matter the dogma).
    And it does seem that some sort of acknowledgement of Orthodox Christianity is now taken as a component of Russian ethnicity..
    But it doesn’t seem that “whiteness” has any overwhelming significance in Russia (even if there may be thugs in Moscow who sometimes harass non-whites, to bad effect). Many non-Russian ethnic groups live in the Russian Federation, some “white” and some “non-white”.
    It seems you can be a “non-white” (in the view of white nationalists), like Sergey Shoygu, and reach the inner realms of power, so long as you embrace the system.
    Another “non-white” is chess-man Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, ruler of Kalmykia. A strange bird, perhaps, but he seems to be a Russian in full standing, inasmuch as he seems to have ruled his land in line with the dictats from above.
    And then there is Ramzan Kadyrov. He seems pretty white to me, even if he seems to be a Muslim authoritarian, not so different from Bashar al-Assad. And he seems to have pretty clearly attached himself to political Russia, even if his Muslimness separates him from ethnic Russia.
    Matthew Heimbach notwithstanding, I think you’d have a much diminished Russia if you removed all these guys, and others like them. Reality turns out to be sort of complex.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    The present borders of Russia are more or less those of Peter the Great of 1717, Crimea excepted. Many minorities have been under Russian rule even longer - 400, 500 years and more.
    During that time, Russia have been able to build sensible, sustainable relations with nearly all its minorities. The 1992 formal dissolution got rid of nearly all the awkward squad, especially Georgia.
    Nearly all minorities of Orthodox background look to Russia as their protector. Those of Muslim background are for the most part from countries which were formerly Zoroastrian in character, or were converted to Islam by persons from those countries. This is an important point often missed by commentators. People of that background do not have the animosity towards Christians and Jews that Muslim Arabs and Somalis have. Far from it. Most are well-disposed towards them. Chechens are an exception, they were "re-converted" by Arabs in the 18th Century.
    This matter is something I know something about. I will write more when the article is more appropriate e.g. dealing with Iran.
    Lastly, nearly all minorities have autonomy and can teach in their own languages.
    , @Thirdeye

    It does seem that ethnic Russianness is, in some sense, at the core of political Russia, just as it was in the USSR (no matter the dogma).
     
    It definitely was under the Czars, but various exigencies during the Soviet and post-Soviet periods have undermined that tie. In addition to the issues managing their decades-long manpower shortage that I alluded to above, the Bolsheviks did make a correct call that rule by a Russian ethnostate contributed to a counter-Russian nationalism in the Republics. That nationalism was countered by hardwiring the interests of the various nationalities into the central bureaucracy. So there were 40 years of rule by a Georgian, Stalin, and a Ukrainian, Kruschev. Also, the ethno-nationalist Russians were, with some justification, under the most suspicion of harboring Czarist sympathies. The brunt of Soviet repression was directed at ethnic Russians. Solzhenitzyn today would be considered one of those hard ethno-nationalist Russians that the West loves to accuse Putin of being.
  17. Putin is useful because he is far enough away and lacking sufficient influence for Americans to actually have any factually informed ideas about Putin and the nature of his regime, but close enough to become a perfect tool for psychological projection. This is, of course, true of both the NYT’s and Heimbach.

    One has to speculate if Heimbach relocated to Russia, how many minutes if would take before he was arrested by security forces. [The Richard Spencer in Hungary criterion.] If he is someone’s tool, I doubt he is Russia’s.

    It is pretty scary that the Establishment is trying to revive 1950′s era HUAC-style conspiracy mongering, all the more so because their fake Cult-Marx “compassion” and “tolerance” charade has eviscerated any residual respect for the First Amendment.

  18. NYT reporters Feuer and Higgins write, “But what seemed inexplicable when Mr. Trump first expressed his admiration for the Russian leader seems, in retrospect, to have been a shrewd dog whistle to a small but highly motivated part of his base.”

    Yes, that dog whistle was sublimely shrewd. It must have garnered dozens of votes for Trump. Perhaps even hundreds.

    Until I read this article, I was mystified at Trump’s victory. Now I know how he did it.

  19. The NY Times leftists are feminized leftists with a heavy gay slant. So of course they despise Bad Vlad due to him being the most macho leader of a white nation. Putin does not alow gay pride parades in Moscow and advises them to stay in the closet, meaning don’t make a spectacle of yourselves the way they are encouraged to do in America, Europe, other developed nations. The Putin contrast with Western European leaders is enormous. These European nations are so pathetic they often have female defense ministers as seen in this well circulated photo.

    https://goo.gl/eEpCKU

    Then of course the West Europeans have nation destroyer Angela Merkle, who invites millions of Muslims to invade Germany as refugees. Male politicians are usually bad while the females ones are worse and sometimes psychos and sociopaths like Merkle. Janet Napolitano was also an open borders sociopath when she ran the Department of Homeland Security. Dittos for our passive-aggressive, gayish President Hussein as he allows and encourages thousands of Central Americas stream across with zero interference.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Actually they do allow gay parades in Moscow, just with a lot of official nose-holding. They do a symbolic hosing of the parade route afterwards, just like they did after parading German POWs. In the West's favorite capital in the Russian world, Kiev, they also permit the march but the cops stand by while the marchers get the crap beat out of them. Of course we in the West hear about the former but not the latter.
  20. @BucephalusXYZ
    This really strikes me as on the mark, and worth pondering.
    My understanding of Russia may be flawed, but I do think about it sometimes, and here I am thinking out loud.
    It does seem that ethnic Russianness is, in some sense, at the core of political Russia, just as it was in the USSR (no matter the dogma).
    And it does seem that some sort of acknowledgement of Orthodox Christianity is now taken as a component of Russian ethnicity..
    But it doesn't seem that "whiteness" has any overwhelming significance in Russia (even if there may be thugs in Moscow who sometimes harass non-whites, to bad effect). Many non-Russian ethnic groups live in the Russian Federation, some "white" and some "non-white".
    It seems you can be a "non-white" (in the view of white nationalists), like Sergey Shoygu, and reach the inner realms of power, so long as you embrace the system.
    Another "non-white" is chess-man Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, ruler of Kalmykia. A strange bird, perhaps, but he seems to be a Russian in full standing, inasmuch as he seems to have ruled his land in line with the dictats from above.
    And then there is Ramzan Kadyrov. He seems pretty white to me, even if he seems to be a Muslim authoritarian, not so different from Bashar al-Assad. And he seems to have pretty clearly attached himself to political Russia, even if his Muslimness separates him from ethnic Russia.
    Matthew Heimbach notwithstanding, I think you'd have a much diminished Russia if you removed all these guys, and others like them. Reality turns out to be sort of complex.

    The present borders of Russia are more or less those of Peter the Great of 1717, Crimea excepted. Many minorities have been under Russian rule even longer – 400, 500 years and more.
    During that time, Russia have been able to build sensible, sustainable relations with nearly all its minorities. The 1992 formal dissolution got rid of nearly all the awkward squad, especially Georgia.
    Nearly all minorities of Orthodox background look to Russia as their protector. Those of Muslim background are for the most part from countries which were formerly Zoroastrian in character, or were converted to Islam by persons from those countries. This is an important point often missed by commentators. People of that background do not have the animosity towards Christians and Jews that Muslim Arabs and Somalis have. Far from it. Most are well-disposed towards them. Chechens are an exception, they were “re-converted” by Arabs in the 18th Century.
    This matter is something I know something about. I will write more when the article is more appropriate e.g. dealing with Iran.
    Lastly, nearly all minorities have autonomy and can teach in their own languages.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    I wonder if the difference between Muslim-Christian relations in Russia and in the sphere of western Christianity might have to do with a different attitude among the Orthodox towards Muslims. Muslims and Orthodox Christians were both on the butt end of the Crusades after they had been co-habitating for hundreds of years. The Vatican was their common enemy from the Baltic to the Holy Land.
    , @BucephalusXYZ
    This is quite interesting. I have probably thought about this more than 98% of Americans, but my knowledge is much less than it could be.
  21. @Verymuchalive
    The present borders of Russia are more or less those of Peter the Great of 1717, Crimea excepted. Many minorities have been under Russian rule even longer - 400, 500 years and more.
    During that time, Russia have been able to build sensible, sustainable relations with nearly all its minorities. The 1992 formal dissolution got rid of nearly all the awkward squad, especially Georgia.
    Nearly all minorities of Orthodox background look to Russia as their protector. Those of Muslim background are for the most part from countries which were formerly Zoroastrian in character, or were converted to Islam by persons from those countries. This is an important point often missed by commentators. People of that background do not have the animosity towards Christians and Jews that Muslim Arabs and Somalis have. Far from it. Most are well-disposed towards them. Chechens are an exception, they were "re-converted" by Arabs in the 18th Century.
    This matter is something I know something about. I will write more when the article is more appropriate e.g. dealing with Iran.
    Lastly, nearly all minorities have autonomy and can teach in their own languages.

    I wonder if the difference between Muslim-Christian relations in Russia and in the sphere of western Christianity might have to do with a different attitude among the Orthodox towards Muslims. Muslims and Orthodox Christians were both on the butt end of the Crusades after they had been co-habitating for hundreds of years. The Vatican was their common enemy from the Baltic to the Holy Land.

  22. @Clyde
    The NY Times leftists are feminized leftists with a heavy gay slant. So of course they despise Bad Vlad due to him being the most macho leader of a white nation. Putin does not alow gay pride parades in Moscow and advises them to stay in the closet, meaning don't make a spectacle of yourselves the way they are encouraged to do in America, Europe, other developed nations. The Putin contrast with Western European leaders is enormous. These European nations are so pathetic they often have female defense ministers as seen in this well circulated photo.
    https://goo.gl/eEpCKU

    Then of course the West Europeans have nation destroyer Angela Merkle, who invites millions of Muslims to invade Germany as refugees. Male politicians are usually bad while the females ones are worse and sometimes psychos and sociopaths like Merkle. Janet Napolitano was also an open borders sociopath when she ran the Department of Homeland Security. Dittos for our passive-aggressive, gayish President Hussein as he allows and encourages thousands of Central Americas stream across with zero interference.

    Actually they do allow gay parades in Moscow, just with a lot of official nose-holding. They do a symbolic hosing of the parade route afterwards, just like they did after parading German POWs. In the West’s favorite capital in the Russian world, Kiev, they also permit the march but the cops stand by while the marchers get the crap beat out of them. Of course we in the West hear about the former but not the latter.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    Actually they do allow gay parades in Moscow, just with a lot of official nose-holding.
     
    This is not true. Please, show us the evidence that:

    a) There were official permists for such parades
    b) They took place anyway.

    If you are talking ofr yearly attempts to have one - they attract no more than a dozen, 20 tops gay activists, 3 times this number of various anti-gay activists who do all the beating, and 3 times of *their* number of Western so-called journalists.
  23. @BucephalusXYZ
    This really strikes me as on the mark, and worth pondering.
    My understanding of Russia may be flawed, but I do think about it sometimes, and here I am thinking out loud.
    It does seem that ethnic Russianness is, in some sense, at the core of political Russia, just as it was in the USSR (no matter the dogma).
    And it does seem that some sort of acknowledgement of Orthodox Christianity is now taken as a component of Russian ethnicity..
    But it doesn't seem that "whiteness" has any overwhelming significance in Russia (even if there may be thugs in Moscow who sometimes harass non-whites, to bad effect). Many non-Russian ethnic groups live in the Russian Federation, some "white" and some "non-white".
    It seems you can be a "non-white" (in the view of white nationalists), like Sergey Shoygu, and reach the inner realms of power, so long as you embrace the system.
    Another "non-white" is chess-man Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, ruler of Kalmykia. A strange bird, perhaps, but he seems to be a Russian in full standing, inasmuch as he seems to have ruled his land in line with the dictats from above.
    And then there is Ramzan Kadyrov. He seems pretty white to me, even if he seems to be a Muslim authoritarian, not so different from Bashar al-Assad. And he seems to have pretty clearly attached himself to political Russia, even if his Muslimness separates him from ethnic Russia.
    Matthew Heimbach notwithstanding, I think you'd have a much diminished Russia if you removed all these guys, and others like them. Reality turns out to be sort of complex.

    It does seem that ethnic Russianness is, in some sense, at the core of political Russia, just as it was in the USSR (no matter the dogma).

    It definitely was under the Czars, but various exigencies during the Soviet and post-Soviet periods have undermined that tie. In addition to the issues managing their decades-long manpower shortage that I alluded to above, the Bolsheviks did make a correct call that rule by a Russian ethnostate contributed to a counter-Russian nationalism in the Republics. That nationalism was countered by hardwiring the interests of the various nationalities into the central bureaucracy. So there were 40 years of rule by a Georgian, Stalin, and a Ukrainian, Kruschev. Also, the ethno-nationalist Russians were, with some justification, under the most suspicion of harboring Czarist sympathies. The brunt of Soviet repression was directed at ethnic Russians. Solzhenitzyn today would be considered one of those hard ethno-nationalist Russians that the West loves to accuse Putin of being.

  24. Ukrainian, Kruschev

    He was an ethnic Russian from Russia who moved to Ukraine as a teenager. He moved to Donbas, a region withing Ukraine with a Russian majority.

    If some Mexican from Ciudad Juarez who moved to an El Paso barrio at age 14 eventually ended up ruling Mexico, this wouldn’t be rule by an American over Mexico.

    The Soviets imposed Khrushchev as a ruler of Ukraine, and in that capacity he sometimes appeared in a Ukrainian folk costume. But he wasn’t an ethnic Ukrainian.

    The brunt of Soviet repression was directed at ethnic Russians.

    While ethnic Russians did suffer horribly from Soviet rule, your statement is mistaken, unless you mean in absolute rather than per capita numbers.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Lots of ethnic Russians self-identified as Ukrainian, especially in the border region where Kruschev was raised. It was until the 1930s Bolshevik policy to encourage "Ukrainization" within the Ukrainian SSR, because that identity was seen as less likely to embrace Czarism than the Russian one. By the time Kruschev came to power in the Ukrainian SSR in 1938, he had been living as a self-identified Ukrainian for over 20 years including his entire adult life. Kruschev's rule of the USSR reflected favor towards the Ukrainian SSR, including various economic perks such as developing a local aerospace industry and adding Crimea to its domain.

    If you're going to talk about a standard for what is an "ethnic Ukrainian," don't rely on the Galician one that was fostered under Austria-Hungary.
  25. @Jason Liu
    It's a pity that both the NYT and Heimbach feel the need to dress up their rhetoric with "freedom" or "Western values".

    Neither freedom or western values are as important as social hierarchy and ethnic nationalism. In fact, western values, both classical and modern, undermine nationalist ideals. Without the west's delusions over humanism, egalitarianism, and freedom, the left would have no leg to stand on.

    Diversity will best preserved by ethnic states.
    Everyone should be happy with ethnic states.
    As a bonus, one could also create states for gays, for lesbians, for zoophiles, for mixed colors or ethnicities. Enjoy!

  26. Is ‘protecting western values’ nowadays really only something an ‘extremist’ does? — that seems to be the implication.

  27. @Thirdeye
    Actually they do allow gay parades in Moscow, just with a lot of official nose-holding. They do a symbolic hosing of the parade route afterwards, just like they did after parading German POWs. In the West's favorite capital in the Russian world, Kiev, they also permit the march but the cops stand by while the marchers get the crap beat out of them. Of course we in the West hear about the former but not the latter.

    Actually they do allow gay parades in Moscow, just with a lot of official nose-holding.

    This is not true. Please, show us the evidence that:

    a) There were official permists for such parades
    b) They took place anyway.

    If you are talking ofr yearly attempts to have one – they attract no more than a dozen, 20 tops gay activists, 3 times this number of various anti-gay activists who do all the beating, and 3 times of *their* number of Western so-called journalists.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Looks like the last one that was permitted was in 2014.
  28. @Lyttenburgh

    Actually they do allow gay parades in Moscow, just with a lot of official nose-holding.
     
    This is not true. Please, show us the evidence that:

    a) There were official permists for such parades
    b) They took place anyway.

    If you are talking ofr yearly attempts to have one - they attract no more than a dozen, 20 tops gay activists, 3 times this number of various anti-gay activists who do all the beating, and 3 times of *their* number of Western so-called journalists.

    Looks like the last one that was permitted was in 2014.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    Looks like the last one that was permitted was in 2014.
     
    None were permitted. The legislation banning "The promotion of the homosexual propaganda among the minors" was adopted in mid 2013 canning any future attempts to held gay parades in Russia with solid judicial basis to disalow them.

    Once again - without "I heard", "I think" and "Looks like" - give us your proof.
  29. @Thirdeye
    Looks like the last one that was permitted was in 2014.

    Looks like the last one that was permitted was in 2014.

    None were permitted. The legislation banning “The promotion of the homosexual propaganda among the minors” was adopted in mid 2013 canning any future attempts to held gay parades in Russia with solid judicial basis to disalow them.

    Once again – without “I heard”, “I think” and “Looks like” – give us your proof.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    There were reports in Russian English language media, including video, showing a gay parade unmolested and with police protection, followed by street washing trucks after the 2014 event. There was clearly official anticipation and acknowledgement, however grudging, of the event. We can only speculate on the legal status of that particular event, whether the new law was interpreted to extend to the gay parade as "homosexual propaganda" at that time, or whether it was ruled in violation of the law but tolerated for tactical reasons. Whatever the situation in 2014, those attempting to hold the event in 2015 and 2016 got thrown to the dogs.
  30. @Verymuchalive
    The present borders of Russia are more or less those of Peter the Great of 1717, Crimea excepted. Many minorities have been under Russian rule even longer - 400, 500 years and more.
    During that time, Russia have been able to build sensible, sustainable relations with nearly all its minorities. The 1992 formal dissolution got rid of nearly all the awkward squad, especially Georgia.
    Nearly all minorities of Orthodox background look to Russia as their protector. Those of Muslim background are for the most part from countries which were formerly Zoroastrian in character, or were converted to Islam by persons from those countries. This is an important point often missed by commentators. People of that background do not have the animosity towards Christians and Jews that Muslim Arabs and Somalis have. Far from it. Most are well-disposed towards them. Chechens are an exception, they were "re-converted" by Arabs in the 18th Century.
    This matter is something I know something about. I will write more when the article is more appropriate e.g. dealing with Iran.
    Lastly, nearly all minorities have autonomy and can teach in their own languages.

    This is quite interesting. I have probably thought about this more than 98% of Americans, but my knowledge is much less than it could be.

  31. @Lyttenburgh

    Looks like the last one that was permitted was in 2014.
     
    None were permitted. The legislation banning "The promotion of the homosexual propaganda among the minors" was adopted in mid 2013 canning any future attempts to held gay parades in Russia with solid judicial basis to disalow them.

    Once again - without "I heard", "I think" and "Looks like" - give us your proof.

    There were reports in Russian English language media, including video, showing a gay parade unmolested and with police protection, followed by street washing trucks after the 2014 event. There was clearly official anticipation and acknowledgement, however grudging, of the event. We can only speculate on the legal status of that particular event, whether the new law was interpreted to extend to the gay parade as “homosexual propaganda” at that time, or whether it was ruled in violation of the law but tolerated for tactical reasons. Whatever the situation in 2014, those attempting to hold the event in 2015 and 2016 got thrown to the dogs.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh

    There were reports in Russian English language media, including video, showing a gay parade unmolested and with police protection, followed by street washing trucks after the 2014 event.
     
    Should it be a case everyone would be talking about such a groundbreaking event to this day. Find this video or stop spreading the disinformation.
  32. @AP

    Ukrainian, Kruschev
     
    He was an ethnic Russian from Russia who moved to Ukraine as a teenager. He moved to Donbas, a region withing Ukraine with a Russian majority.

    If some Mexican from Ciudad Juarez who moved to an El Paso barrio at age 14 eventually ended up ruling Mexico, this wouldn't be rule by an American over Mexico.

    The Soviets imposed Khrushchev as a ruler of Ukraine, and in that capacity he sometimes appeared in a Ukrainian folk costume. But he wasn't an ethnic Ukrainian.


    The brunt of Soviet repression was directed at ethnic Russians.
     
    While ethnic Russians did suffer horribly from Soviet rule, your statement is mistaken, unless you mean in absolute rather than per capita numbers.

    Lots of ethnic Russians self-identified as Ukrainian, especially in the border region where Kruschev was raised. It was until the 1930s Bolshevik policy to encourage “Ukrainization” within the Ukrainian SSR, because that identity was seen as less likely to embrace Czarism than the Russian one. By the time Kruschev came to power in the Ukrainian SSR in 1938, he had been living as a self-identified Ukrainian for over 20 years including his entire adult life. Kruschev’s rule of the USSR reflected favor towards the Ukrainian SSR, including various economic perks such as developing a local aerospace industry and adding Crimea to its domain.

    If you’re going to talk about a standard for what is an “ethnic Ukrainian,” don’t rely on the Galician one that was fostered under Austria-Hungary.

  33. Lots of ethnic Russians self-identified as Ukrainian, especially in the border region where Kruschev was raised

    Evidence of that occurring under the Tsars, when Ukrainian identity was discouraged even for Ukrainians?

    The rayon where Khrushchev was born and raised is about 2% Ukrainian.

    It was until the 1930s Bolshevik policy to encourage “Ukrainization” within the Ukrainian SSR, because that identity was seen as less likely to embrace Czarism than the Russian one.

    You do realize that Khrushchev was raised before the USSR came into existence, don’t you? He was already in his mid-twenties when the Revolution occurred.

    By the time Kruschev came to power in the Ukrainian SSR in 1938, he had been living as a self-identified Ukrainian for over 20 years including his entire adult life.

    “The Secretary of the Ukrainian Party and Premier of the Government was N.S. Khrushchev….It was they who met us and it was with them that we spent the entire three days…We had heard somewhere that he was not a Ukrainian by birth, but a Russian. Though nothing was said about this, he himself avoided mentioning it, for it would have been embarrassing if not even the Premier of the Ukrainian Government was a Ukrainian!”

    “CONVERSATIONS WITH STALIN” by Milovan Djilas, 1962; Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., NY; pp. 117-119.

    Khrushchev also mentioned being an ethnic Russian in his memoirs, “Khrushchev Remembers.”

  34. @Thirdeye
    There were reports in Russian English language media, including video, showing a gay parade unmolested and with police protection, followed by street washing trucks after the 2014 event. There was clearly official anticipation and acknowledgement, however grudging, of the event. We can only speculate on the legal status of that particular event, whether the new law was interpreted to extend to the gay parade as "homosexual propaganda" at that time, or whether it was ruled in violation of the law but tolerated for tactical reasons. Whatever the situation in 2014, those attempting to hold the event in 2015 and 2016 got thrown to the dogs.

    There were reports in Russian English language media, including video, showing a gay parade unmolested and with police protection, followed by street washing trucks after the 2014 event.

    Should it be a case everyone would be talking about such a groundbreaking event to this day. Find this video or stop spreading the disinformation.

Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.