The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
Examining the Hatred of Vladimir Putin and Russia
A Conservative Analysis
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Anyone who has followed the ongoing crisis in Eastern Europe and Ukraine knows the very hostile view that the establishment news media and Washington political class have of President Vladimir Putin of Russia and his policies. In the halls of Congress and in the mainstream press—almost every night on Fox News—serious charges are proffered against Russia’s president and his latest outrages. Sanctions and bellicose measures get enacted by the House and Senate overwhelmingly, with only meagre opposition and almost no serious discussion.

The mainstream American media and American political leaders seem intent to present only a one-sided, very negative picture of the Russian leader.

Various allegations are continually and repeatedly expressed.

How do these charges stand up under serious examination? What is their origin? And, what do they say about the current political and cultural environment in America and the West?

The allegations against Putin can be summarized in five major points:

  1. Putin is a KGB thug and is surrounded by KGB thugs;
  2. Under Putin the Russian Orthodox Church continues to be controlled by KGB types;
  3. Putin wants to reassemble the old Soviet Union, and he believes that the break-up of the USSR was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century;
  4. Putin is corrupt and has amassed billions of rubles personally skimmed off the top of the weak Russian economy;
  5. And he is an anti-democratic authoritarian who persecutes homosexuals, in particular.

The charges against Putin go from disingenuous to the dishonest. The “KGB thug” and the “break-up” of the USSR accusations have been addressed in a variety of well-researched books and in-depth articles. The documentation contradicts these allegations, including some charges that have been made by usually conservative voices. It is extremely curious that such ostensibly conservative publications as The New American, for example, find themselves parroting accusations first made by notorious leftwing publicists and, then, by international gay rights supporters.

On the contrary, various historians and researchers, including Professor Allen C. Lynch (in his excellent study, Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft, 2011), Professor Michael Stuermer (in his volume, Putin and the Rise of Russia, 2008), M. S. King (in The War Against Putin, 2014), Reagan ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock, Reagan Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former Congressman Ron Paul (his web site,, contains numerous scholarly articles defending Putin), Reagan budget director David Stockman, and conservative writer William Lind—none of these men on the Left—have pointed out that those allegations have been ripped out of context and are largely untenable. Additionally, numerous conservative religious authors have investigated and defended Putin, including Catholic journalists such as Michael Matt in The Remnant, Dr. E. Michael Jones in Culture Wars, Dr. Joseph Pearce in The St. Austin Review, and Gary Potter, and writers for conservative Protestant organizations like the Gospel Defense League. Nevertheless, the charges made against Putin are presented as fact by many Neoconservative “talking heads” on Fox (e.g., Charles Krauthammer) and on talk radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck), as well as by the Leftist establishment media. Disinformation is clearly at work here, even among some of the strongest voices on the American right.

Professor Lynch reveals in his detailed study that the evidence for the “Putin KGB thug” allegation is very thin and lacks substantial basis. First, Putin was never “head of the KGB,” as some writers mistakenly (and, often, maliciously) assert. That is simply a falsehood. Rather, he served as a mid-level intelligence bureaucrat who sat at a desk in Dresden, East Germany, where he was stationed with his family for several years before returning to Leningrad. His job was to analyze data, and he had no involvement in other activities. [Lynch, pp. 19-21] Contemporary American intelligence reports confirm this fact. Indeed, this was one of the reasons that early on, during 1990 and 1991, Putin was considered a hopeful figure among the generation of younger Russians by American intelligence sources.

After the fall of Communism during the administration of Boris Yeltsin, he very briefly served at Yeltsin’s request as head of the FSB intelligence service. But the FSB is not the KGB.

Lynch treats in some detail the question of Putin’s supposed continued subservience to KGB ideology, with particular reference to the events surrounding the abortive Communist coup by the old hands at the KGB in August 1991. Putin, by that time, had resigned his position in the KGB and was serving as deputy mayor to pro-American Leningrad mayor, Anatoly Sobchak, one of the fiercest critics of the KGB and the old Soviet system. It was Putin who organized the local Leningrad militia to oppose the attempted KGB coup and protect Mayor Sobchak and the forces of democratic reform:

Putin played a key role in saving Leningrad for the democrats. The coup, which lasted but three days, was carried out on August 19. That same day Mayor Sobchak arrived on a flight from Moscow. The Leningrad KGB, which supported the coup, planned to arrest Sobchak immediately upon landing. Putin got word of the plan and took decisive and preemptive action: He organized a handful of loyal troops and met Sobchak at the airport, driving the car right up to the plane’s exit ramp. The KGB turned back, not wishing to risk an open confrontation with Sobchak’s armed entourage [led by Putin].” [Lynch, p. 34]

This signal failure in Russia’s second city doomed the attempted KGB coup and assured the final collapse of the Soviet system and eventual transition of Russia away from Communism. It was Vladimir Putin, then, who was largely responsible for defeating and preventing the return of Communism in Russia. It is very hard to see how a secret supporter of the KGB would take such action, if he were actually favoring the return of Communism.

As Professor Lynch recounts:

Putin accepted the irreversibility of the Soviet Union’s collapse and came to terms with the market and private property as the proper foundations of the Russian economy. [Lynch, p.28]

It is true that Putin lamented the break-up of the old Soviet Union, but not because he regretted the disappearance of the Soviets, but, rather, because of the numerous and intimate economic, linguistic, social, and cultural connections that interrelated most of the fifteen constituent republics of the old USSR. His comments on the topic were very clear, but have been selectively taken out of context by the Putin haters. [See the book-length interview with Putin, with comments from other Russian leaders, First Person: An Astonishing Frank Self-Portrait by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, New York, 2000, pp. 165-190]

Much like the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire after World War I, which left significant ethnic minorities cut off from their historic former homelands — for example, millions of Austro-German Sudetens in Czechoslovakia, Hungarian Transylvanians in Romania, etc. — and a number of economically non-viable states in the Balkans, the dissolution of the Soviet Union created the same situation in Eastern Europe. The present intractable crisis in Ukraine is a clear example of what can happen and has happened as a result. It was this situation that Putin rightly lamented; it was this break-up that he foresaw correctly as a tragedy.

The much-criticized—by the American press—secession of Crimea from Ukraine and its subsequent re-union with Russia clearly illustrates this. What too many so-called “experts” in America fail to understand (or, if they do, skillfully omit in their reports) is that Crimea was an integral part of Russia for hundreds of years until Communist Nikita Khrushchev sliced it off from Russia and gave it to Ukraine in 1954, despite the fact that 60% of its population is ethnically Russian and its culture and language completely Russian. [See the Wikipedia article, “Crimea”]

Moreover, the Ukrainian “oblasts,” or provinces, of Lugansk and Donetsk, have a similar history and ethno-cultural make-up. They were arbitrarily added to the Ukrainian socialist republic in the 1920s after the Communist revolution, despite being historically part of Mother Russia for centuries.

Interestingly, at the same time Putin made the “break-up” of the Soviet Russia comment, he visited Poland to denounce and condemn the Communist massacre and crimes in the Katyn Forest at the beginning of World War II, as well as the horrid Soviet gulags. On more than one occasion, especially at the meetings of the international Valdai Discussion Forum in 2013 and 2014, he has harshly condemned in the strongest terms Communism and the atrocious crimes committed by Communists. In so doing, he made extensive reference to Russia’s Christian heritage (also criticizing same sex marriage, abortion, and homosexuality as being “opposed to the most sacred values of our traditions”).

Putin’s remarks at the Valdai Forum in September 2013, in front of representatives from most European countries, deserve extensive quoting. Here is some of what he said:

Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their historic roots, including the Christian values that constitute the very basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan. The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of unlawful migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

And Putin gained firm support and endorsement from that inveterate and most intransigent anti-Communist, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Before his death in 2008, Solzhenitsyn praised Putin and stated that he believed Putin’s personal acceptance of Christian faith to be genuine. American ambassador William Burns visited Solzhenitsyn (April 2008) shortly prior to his death and quoted him as stating that under Putin, the nation was rediscovering what it was to be Russian and Christian. [See article at, Thursday, December 2, 2010] The great Russian anti-Communist also gave a long 2007 interview with the German magazine, Der Spiegel, saying the same thing. So, then, if the Putin-haters are correct, did Putin fool the great Solzhenitsyn who was by far the greatest and most intransigent anti-Communist of the 20th century? Not likely.

About the personal corruption charge Lynch offers substantial detail and discusses how it got going, basically spread by Putin’s liberal opponents. To those who suggest that Putin stood to make a fortune off his political choices, Lynch (and others) offers substantial documentation to the contrary:

Putin was not corrupt, at least in the conventional, venal sense. His modest and frankly unfashionable attire bespoke a seeming indifference to personal luxury. While as deputy mayor. He had acquired the use of the summer dacha of the former East German Consulate and even installed a sauna unit there, but when the house burned down in the summer of 1996, his \$5,000 life’s savings burned with it. To have accumulated only \$5,000 in five years as deputy mayor of Russia’s second-largest city and largest port, when hundreds of less well-placed Russians were enriching themselves on government pickings, implies something other than pecuniary motives behind Putin’s activities (….) In sum, Putin was honest, certainly by Russian standards. He lived simply and worked diligently. Accused by a foe…of having purchased a million dollar villa in France, Putin sued for slander and won his case in court a year later. [Lynch, pp. 33, 35]

Some of the hostility towards Putin emerged when he became interim president of the Russian Federation after Boris Yeltsin stepped down in December, 1999. Putin had established himself as a loyal and forthright political leader since serving as deputy mayor for the pro-democratic Mayor Sobchak. He had also served Yeltsin faithfully.

But Putin was no Yeltsin. While initially following the Yeltsin pro-American and pro-Western lead in foreign policy, Putin was also aware that Russia was undergoing a radical transition from a decrepit and collapsed Communist state to the recovery of some of its older traditions, including a mushrooming, vibrant return to traditional Russian Orthodoxy, a faith which he has publicly and personally embraced. [See various confirming reports, including Charles Glover, “Putin and the Monk,” FINANCIAL TIMES Magazine, January 25, 2013, and video clip. During the days of oppressive Communist rule, the Russian Orthodox Church, at least the official leadership, was subservient to Marxism, with many of its leaders at least mouthing Communist ideas, if not serving as agents. The former Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexei (who died in 2008), had been criticized as a collaborator with the Communist regime. However, the so-called “intelligence proof” that suddenly “appeared” in Estonia stating that he was a secret KGB agent has been placed in very serious doubt (see Wikipedia, “Patriarch Alexei” article). Apparently, the “documents” were most likely fabricated and not genuine. Indeed,as the Encyclopedia Britannica in its biography of him relates, Alexei was “the first patriarch in Soviet history to be chosen without government pressure; candidates were nominated from the floor, and the election was conducted by secret ballot.” Not only that, after the fall of Communism, Alexei publicly denounced Communist crimes and called for the freedom of Christianity in Russia. It became something of a moot point when Alexei died in 2008; his replacement as head of the Russian church was Archbishop Kirill, someone who is known for his staunch opposition to Marxism and his defense of historic Christianity and traditional morality.

As Russian religious scholar Professor John Garrard exhaustively demonstrates in his excellent study, Russian Orthodoxy Resurgent (2008), from 1991 onwards the Russian Orthodox Church began a necessary purification, with older collaborators and Communist agents gradually stepping down or being removed. Today the Russian Orthodox Church is, by far, the most conservative, traditional and anti-Communist religious body in the world. It has gone so far as to canonize dozens of martyrs killed by the Communists and celebrate the Romanov tsar and his family who were brutally murdered by the Reds in 1918. Significantly, since 1991 over 26,000 new Christian churches have opened in Russia, and the fact that Christianity is being reborn in Russia has not gone unnoticed among some Christian writers in the America and Europe, although generally ignored by the secular press. [There are numerous articles and reports chronicling this amazing rebirth, e.g., Russia has experienced a spiritual resurrection, Catholic Herald, October 22, 2014; see also, “Faith Rising in the East, Setting in the West,” January 29, 2014, Break Point Commentaries. Such a phenomena is not some Communist plot, but represents a genuine desire on the part of the Russian people to rediscover their religious roots, ironically just as a majority of American now seem to embrace same sex marriage, abortion, and the worst extremes of immorality and the rejection of traditional Christianity.

In support of his goals Putin has championed Russian laws that: (1) have practically outlawed abortion in Russia (no abortions after the 12th week, and before that time in limited cases, and also the end of financial support for abortions, reversing a previous Soviet policy); (2) clamp down on homosexuality and homosexual propaganda—absolutely no homosexual propaganda in Russian schools, no public displays of homosexuality, with legal penalties imposed for violating these laws; (3) strongly support traditional marriage, especially religious marriage, with financial aid to married couples having more than two children; (4) have established compulsory religious instruction in all Russian schools (including instruction in different Christian confessions, in different regions of the country); (4) implement a policy instituting chaplaincy in Russian military regiments (and religious institutions now assist in helping military families); (5) have made religious holidays now official Russian state holidays; (6) have instituted a nationwide program of rebuilding churches that were destroyed by the Communists (the most notable being the historic Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow); and (7) officially support the Russian film industry in producing conservative religious and patriotic movies—interestingly, the most popular film in Russia in 2009 was the movie “Admiral,” a very favorable biopic of the leader of the White Russian counter-revolutionary, Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak, who was executed by the Communists in 1920. The film was supported by the Russian cultural ministry. Can we imagine the American NEH doing anything similar in the current United States? [See reports,, January 23, 2013; LifeSiteNews, October 26, 2011, August 1, 2013; Scott Rose, Bloomberg News, June 30, 2013; see also Garrard on some of these actions]

As American Catholic author, Mark Tooley, has written Understanding a More Religious and Assertive Russia, April 2, 2014:

Putin has formed a close association with Russian Orthodoxy, as Russian rulers typically have across centuries. He is smart to do so, as Russia has experienced somewhat of a spiritual revival…. Orthodoxy is widely and understandably seen as the spiritual remedy to the cavernous spiritual vacuum left by over 70 disastrous, often murderous years of Bolshevism. Resurgent religious traditionalism has fueled Russia’s new law against sexual orientation proselytism to minors and its new anti-abortion law. Both laws also respond to Russia’s demographic struggle with plunging birth rates and monstrously high abortion rates that date to Soviet rule. Some American religious conservatives have looked to Russian religious leaders as allies in international cooperation on pro-family causes.

As the largest nation in the world, with historic connections to the rest of Europe, but also to Asia, Putin understood as well that Russia, despite the Communist interlude, was still a major power to be reckoned with. A reawakened Russian conservative nationalism and a return to the traditional Orthodox Christian faith did not, he initially hoped, predetermine an eventual clash with the European Union nor with the United States.

Indeed, after the 9/11 attack on the “twin towers” in New York, Putin’s Russia was the first nation to offer its full support to and its cooperation with American intelligence agencies to combat terrorism and bring the culprits to justice. Having combated Chechen Islamic terrorism in the Caucasus region, Russia had experience dealing with Islamic extremism. [Lynch, pp. 100-105; Stuermer, pp. 5-6]

Nevertheless, Bush administration Neoconservatives basically kicked Russia in the teeth. With their zealous belief in liberal democracy and global equality, to be imposed on offending nations if need be , as Allan Bloom once boasted, they condescendingly refused Russian collaboration. As leading Neocon publicist and “talking head,” Charles Krauthammer, expressed it, “we now live in a unipolar world in which there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States.”

The Neoconservative condescension towards Russia, first after 9/11, then with the threatened placement of missiles in Poland, pushing NATO to the very borders of Russia, and finally following the bungled American diplomatic escapade in Georgia in 2008, cemented a conviction among Russians and by Vladimir Putin that the desired partnership with America was unrealizable, at least for the time being. [See Lynch, ch. 6, generally, for a thorough discussion of Russian foreign policy; Stuermer, pp. 196-199]

The desire for Russia to become a “collaborative partner” in any kind of situation resembling international parity was just not acceptable to American Neocons. Whereas Yeltsin had been welcomed in Washington as “America’s poodle,” willing to do America’s bidding, Putin believed that the largest nation in the world, which had thrown off the Communist yoke, merited a larger role. His desire was for a real partnership. But aggressive attempts spearheaded by the United States to incorporate formerly integral parts of Russia—areas that were and continue to be considered within the Russian “sphere of influence,” even if independent—into NATO, largely dashed Russian hopes for partnership with the West. [Stuermer, pp. 191-196] In 1996 the late George Kennan cautioned the American foreign policy establishment that expansion of NATO into those areas “was a strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions.” Kennan warned against a foreign policy that was “utopian in its expectation, legalistic in its concept … moralistic … and self-righteous.” [Robert Sidelsky, Kennan’s Revenge: Remembering the Reasons for the Cold War The Guardian, April 23, 2014, ] Henry Kissinger echoed this warning on November 12, 2014, calling in Der Spiegel the American response to Russia “a fatal mistake.”

Perhaps it is no coincidence that many of the present-day Neocon publicists descend from immigrant Jewish Labour Zionists and inhabitants of the Russian “pale of settlement,” who experienced tsarist pogroms in the late 19th century and who later formed the vanguard of Marxist efforts to overthrow the tsar and establish a socialist state? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s mammoth study, Two Hundred Years Together (still untranslated into English, although a French edition exists: Deux Siecles Ensembles, 1795-1995, Fayard, 2002), offers fascinating detail on this process. The Socialist internationalism manifested by those revolutionaries found its incarnation in Leon Trotsky, murdered at Stalin’s orders in Mexico in 1940. Despite the supposed migration of the Neocons towards the political Right in the 1970s and 1980s, the globalist and “democratic” legacy of Trotsky remains a not-so-distant lodestar for many zealous partisans.

At times this paternal reverence continues to break forth, in unlikely sources. On National Review Online, a few years back, Neoconservative writer Stephen Schwartz wrote:

To my last breath, I will defend Trotsky who alone and pursued from country to country and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling to Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit that he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists and Stalinists in their second childhood make of it what they will.” [See Professor Paul Gottfried’s commentary on, April 17, 2007]

For the American Neocons, the emergence of a nationalist, Christian, and undemocratic Russia is perhaps too reminiscent of the “bad old days.” And despite very different circumstances, a non-conforming Russian state demanding any form of parity with the world’s “only remaining superpower” is out of the question.

On the contrary, Boris Yeltsin was a Neocon favorite. Yeltsin’s tenure as president seemed not only to echo a second-rate “America’s poodle” status, his handling of the Russian economy proved disastrous for the average Russian, but lucrative for a handful of Russian oligarchs, who in turn were connected to American business interests. Wikipedia (article on Boris Yeltsin) sums up his actions in this way:

In 1995, as Yeltsin struggled to finance Russia’s growing foreign debt and gain support from the Russian business elite for his bid in the early-1996 presidential elections, the Russian president prepared for a new wave of privatization offering stock shares in some of Russia’s most valuable state enterprises in exchange for bank loans. The program was promoted as a way of simultaneously speeding up privatization and ensuring the government a much-needed infusion of cash for its operating needs.

However, the deals were effectively giveaways of valuable state assets to a small group of tycoons in finance, industry, energy, telecommunications, and the media who came to be known as “oligarchs” in the mid-1990s. This was due to the fact that ordinary people sold their vouchers for cash. The vouchers were bought out by a small group of investors. By mid-1996, substantial ownership shares over major firms were acquired at very low prices by a handful of people. Boris Berezovsky, who controlled major stakes in several banks and the national media, emerged as one of Yeltsin’s most prominent backers. Along with Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Potanin, Vladimir Bogdanov, Rem Viakhirev, Vagit Alekperov, Alexander Smolensky, Victor Vekselberg, Mikhail Fridman and a few years later Roman Abramovich, were habitually mentioned in the media as Russia’s oligarchs.

On his assumption of the presidency and his election to a full first term, Putin resolved to end this economic domination by “the oligarchs,” but in so doing, he antagonized their internationalist capitalist partners in the West on Wall Street and in Bruxelles.

During his first term, Putin proved himself to be a clever and resourceful politician. He organized a powerful political base, his United Russia political party, and, like most successful political leaders, was able to parlay his economic successes and a favorable conclusion to the Chechen civil war into a strong base of support across the Russian Federation. Criticized by some domestic opponents for not following punctiliously all the hallmark benchmarks of Western-style “democracy,” Putin insisted that the difficult path to Russian democracy was different than that so often pushed (and imposed) by the United States around the world. Nevertheless, the average Russian citizen experienced more real liberties and more economic freedom than at any time in Russia’s long history, and the credit for that must be Putin’s. [Lynch, pp. 69-74; Stuermer, pp. 199-200]

The continuing charges that Putin is corrupt and has surrounded himself with ex-KGBers have as their origin, not surprisingly, leftist and liberal domestic opponents of the Russian president in Russia, as Lynch, Paul Craig Roberts, M. S. King, and others have shown. In fact, most of Putin’s advisors lack serious earlier Communist/KGB involvement. The charges, nevertheless, have been picked up by the Murdoch media and Neocon press. Just as they had lauded Yeltsin, they quickly turned on the nationalist Putin, who quickly became in the Western press a “KGB thug,” “corrupt,” and desirous of “restoring the old Soviet Union.

One of the major, if indirect, Russian domestic sources for the corruption charges comes via a prolific Russian politician, Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov, identified as a “new liberal,” is a longtime opponent of Vladimir Putin and a favorite of John McCain and various “mainstream conservatives.” [See, “Russians React Badly to U.S. Criticism on Protests,” The New York Times, January 6, 2011] Over the years he has penned a number of election broadsides and pamphlets, charging Putin with everything from feathering his own “nest” with “billions of rubles,” to election fraud. [See Nemtsov, Putin: What 10 Years of Putin Have Brought, 2010] In each case, his allegations lack the kind of sources to make them creditable. It is as if Al Gore were to have written a pamphlet about George W. Bush in the 2000 election: it and its content would immediately be highly suspect.

That some supposedly conservative American publications and news sources could give these accusations credence just demonstrates the power of the liberal/left media and the international anti-Russian homosexual lobby who have tried desperately to propagate such ideas.

Although the Nemtsov origin for the constant media barrage is important, in recent months the nature of the Western opposition to Putin and Russia has been radically transformed. While Nemtsov’s canards certainly have found their way into the Western press, since Russia’s legal prohibitions (in early 2013) against homosexual propaganda (especially directed towards underage children) and its forthright defense of the Christian institution of marriage, the vigorous opposition to Putin has assumed a “moral” dimension, symbolized best, perhaps, by Obama’s appointment of several over-the-hill, openly homosexual athletes to head the United States delegation to the Sochi Olympics in early 2014.

Such an action demonstrated both the fundamental rejection by the American leadership (and Western European leaders) of Russia’s affirmation of traditional marriage and traditional Christianity, while illustrating the formal apostasy by the West from its own traditional Christian moorings.

Enter Russian-American journalist and author Masha Gessen. Numerous references to Gessen began to appear last year, and soon she was appearing as “the Russian authority” on several of the Sunday morning news programs and as a guest on the Establishment’s special programs dealing with Russia and Ukraine. Repeatedly, she is identified as “the noted expert and author on Russia and Vladimir Putin.” Her 2012 volume, The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin, has been cited on such programs as “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation” as critical to understanding Russia and its president. She is the most widely-quoted writer on Russia and Putin now in the West.

But just who is Masha Gessen? She is identified by the Wikipedia (not known for its right wing bias) as a Jewish lesbian activist, with dual Russian and American citizenship (how did she manage that?), who is “married” to another lesbian, with a “family,” but who advocates the abolition of the “institution of marriage,” itself.

She has identified herself as a violent opponent of Putin and of traditional Christianity. Yet, her book, The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin, is held up as the best volume on Russia and its president, while even her defenders (writing reviews on, for instance, and elsewhere) admit that her study reads like “one, long, impassioned editorial.”

Let us add that Gessen is an unrelenting champion of the Russian lesbian punk rock band, “Pussy Riot,” who profaned the high altar of one of the most sacred churches in Russia, the Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. Her volume, Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot (2014), is a passionate apologia for that pornographic lesbian band and a vitriolic attack on both Putin and traditional Orthodox Christianity, especially the institution of marriage, which Putin strongly and publicly defends. Her attacks find their way into the whole spectrum of American opinion, including, sadly, into supposedly conservative publications. Indeed, many Neoconservatives are remarkably “soft” on issues surrounding homosexual rights. [See, for example, “Fox News Goes Gay,” Christian Newswire, August 14, 2013; James Kirchick, “Out, Proud, and Loud: A GOP Nominee Breaks Boundaries,” The Daily Beast, February 18, 2014; Andrew Potts, “Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer calls gay rights struggle ‘heroic’,” Gay Star News, January 1, 2014 ]

Gessen, then, has now become one major source for attacks as well as the “analysis” spewed out by the major networks. As one can see, the real key here increasingly is the issue of homosexuality and the fact that Putin’s Russia defends traditional Christian ethics and has clamped down on gay propaganda. Gessen finds this intolerable….thus, even though her journalistic writing purports to take a researched and scholarly view of Russian affairs, her attacks, the charges of corruption and anti-democratic tendencies, are all subsumed into something much more important to this vocal activist: an all-encompassing passion to advance homosexuality worldwide and an unremitting opposition to traditional Christianity.

But it is not just a prominent and influential publicist like Masha Gessen who identifies the issue of homosexuality as central to the hatred for Putin and contemporary Russia. Gessen’s views are now completely mainstream in the West, illustrated resoundingly by President Obama’s naming of those gay former Olympians to represent the United States at Sochi. The gesture was unmistakable, but its symbolism indicated something more profound in the West’s post-Christian mentality. Indeed, this salient aspect of what euphemistically is now called “defending human rights” underpins EU and American policies towards Russia. Such organizations as the Human Rights League, People for the American Way, and the United Nations have gotten involved on a global level, cementing this template. In the international political sphere, no clearer illustration of this pervasive influence on policy may be found than in the response of close American ally German Chancellor Angela Merkel to President Putin’s criticism of the collapse of traditional Christian morality in America and Europe. As reported by The Times of London, November 30, 2014, Merkel, who had for some time urged a softer approach to Russia and continued negotiations, finally realized:

that there could be no reconciliation with Vladimir Putin when she was treated to his hardline views on gay rights.The German chancellor was deep in one of the 40 conversations she has had with the Russian president over the past year — more than the combined total with David Cameron, François Hollande and Barack Obama — when he began to rail against the “decadence” of the West. Nothing exemplified this “decay of values” more than the West’s promotion of gay rights, Putin told her. The Kremlin and instead should adopt a policy of Cold War-style containment.

And Merkel is not alone. She joins Barack Obama and prime ministers David Cameron, Francois Hollande, and the leaders of the EU in expressing this important underlying rationale for Western policy towards Russia.

It is, then, the formal Western and American embrace of homosexuality, same sex marriage, and other deviations from traditional Christian morality as normative that has opened a steep chasm and motivates zealous proponents, for whom Vladimir Putin and a revived traditional Russia present a distinct challenge to their eventual global success.

It is, then, this rebellion against God-created human nature and against natural law, itself, that is bitterly opposed to Russia’s affirmation of traditional religious belief. It is this divide now that forms the deepest basis of the profound conflict between East and West. Indeed, the world has been turned upside down, with Russia now defending Christianity, while the American and Western political and media elites viciously attack it. As Patrick Buchanan now rightly asks: “On whose side is God NOW on?”

Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European intellectual history from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in American intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as Registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French, Spanish, and English on historical subjects as well as classical music and opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical, archival, and genealogical organizations. Small sections of this article were originally published on the Communities Digital News website, April 16, 2014.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin 
Hide 104 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. unit472 says:

    Whatever Putin was or might have been, after 15 years in power he is past his ‘sell by date’. When the leader of Germany, who had no axe to grind with “Russia” and who , in fact, had rather lousy relations with the United States, decided that Putin was a man with real mental issues to include megalomania and an inability to grasp ‘reality’, the pretense is over. It is Angela Merkel who is leading the EU’s effort to impose sanctions on this man… not the neocons.

    Why Putin’s sawed off Russia attracts the mirror image of the Soviet Union’s useful idiots, fellow travelers and whatever term we have to come with for pinko ( how about closet homos) is for their psychiatrists to fathom. Not me. I just know a liar and a jerk when I see one and Putin is a liar and a jerk. No Russian troops in Crimea… then there were afterall. No Russian troops in Ukraine? Oh yeah and two months after Yanukovych was overthrown, Ukrainian ‘rebels’ have better kit than the Ukrainian Army but, oddly enough, no helicopters. Strange that a militia group that could equip itself with the pick of Ukrainian Army equipment but not manage to capture, swipe or buy a few helicopters.

    Boyd Cathey is either an idiot or a paid operative of Russian intelligence agencies.

  2. Brewer says:

    Thank you Sir. It is heartening to read such a cogent defence of this remarkable leader after reading a hit piece in (of all places) the New Zealand Herald this morning.
    One small observation I would like to make. The old “left” and “right” political labels seem to me no longer relevant to today’s dialogue.
    Since the 80s an ideology has emerged which I call “the Politics of fear”. I did not coin the term, I borrowed it from a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis called “The Power of Nightmares – the rise of the Politics of Fear” – which I heartily recommend to your readers.
    The voice-over at the beginning of this series intones something like “our politicians once offered to make our lives better, now they promise to protect us from nightmares”.
    The political divide now seems to be between those who buy into the nightmares and those who do not, those who (believing in the nightmares) support military intervention and those who take a longer view.
    This ideology, I believe, is the bastard child of the Israel/U.S. affaire. I say “bastard” as I do not believe that the coupling has the blessing of the majority of U.S. citizens but is, rather, the product of a rape of the American political process by the neo-con cabal, ably assisted by a captive media.

    This ideology is now responsible for much of the Middle East now in smoking ruins, a circumstance that must please Israel no end. Indeed it was foretold by Oded Yinon (Sharon adviser) back in the eighties. An excerpt:

    Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.

    -see link below.

    Putin of course is in the sights of this ideology as he has some power to check these assaults and looks like gaining a great deal more as he moves closer to China. His cardinal sin may be his support for Assad.

    Remarkable speech given by Putin:

  3. Great piece. Thank you very much.

  4. Maj. Kong says:

    Putin’s biggest mistake was not creating the fake two party system. America has given the world many gifts, and our system of party politics is one of the best for maintaining control of a large nation. If Vlad had followed this advice, and created the real illusion of democracy in Russia, the West would have found him much harder to oppose.

    Article is by Gessen, and clearly biased against Russia, but I think the idea is still a good one.

    Putin has arguably aged badly as a leader, and considers himself too indispensable, much like Jiang Zemin in China. Though by Russian standards, he’s the best since Alexander II.

    Dutch disease is another mark against Russia, which Putin hasn’t done much about, and which arguably makes them more dependent on the West (and possibly China) than they should be.

    The article above also doesn’t mention Larry Summers, which is a profound insight to which particular businessmen got away with it.

  5. Sam J. says:

    “…On his assumption of the presidency and his election to a full first term, Putin resolved to end this economic domination by “the oligarchs,” but in so doing, he antagonized their internationalist capitalist partners in the West on Wall Street and in Bruxelles…”

    Well he won’t say it but I will. The Jews. The Jews were looting Russia and anyone who stops their looting is the enemy. If the US ever stops the Jews looting of us they will try to do the same to us.

    Right now the Jews control the US like they used to control Russia so they’re using our money and name to attack him. Any country that is in their way will get the same.

    It’s possible that they mean to start a nuclear war between the US and China/Russia. The neglect of our nuclear forces and our bizarre foreign policy are part of this. Many years ago if someone would have told me that I would have thought such a thing I would have called them mad. Not now, after 9-11, where building#7, not hit by a plane, fell for around 108 feet at the same speed as a rock dropped in mid air. It’s impossible for fires to have done this. Now when I see stupid things going on I at least realize that someone may have planned it that way. Our policy towards Russia is stupid and the Jews run our policy.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Maj. Kong
    , @Ron
    , @Ace
  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    When one interrupts the Chosen during crisis exploitation and holy looting and collecting their pounds of flesh, one becomes the latest Haman in their fevered imaginations, which requires the nations to be propagandized into action.

  7. fnn says:

    BRD has of course been a vassal state of the American Empire from its inception.

  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam J.

    Victoria Nulland and Geoff Pyatt are both jews.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Stephen Berk
  9. Fake Name says:

    Whatever else may be said about Mr. Putin, what stands out about the man is that he is clearly and resolutely in favor of Russia, which distinguishes him starkly from the Americans’ current president.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  10. TomB says:

    A great comment in my opinion at least. Gone wrong only at the very end seeing Putin’s antipathy towards homosexuality as explaining anything. I at least haven’t and don’t see the Ukraine (or Georgia, or whoever else our anti-Putinista’s have lept to champion) being enamored of gay rights.

    So in any event that as an explanatory factor for all the anti-Putin/anti-Russian agitation seems to me to be a distraction from the only remaining one which is … the neocons, pure and simple. They tried their agitation against Putin and his (rather Christian) vision of Russia first back when he took off after those oligarchs, but that mud never stuck to the wall given the blatant criminality involved on the part of those oligarchs.

    Then, they tried it again with that Georgia business, with the facts again betraying them.

    All this Crimean business then is just them finding yet another stalking horse. (Not, as I have said before, that I think what Putin did there is at least somewhat problematic and should have been addressed in a different way.)

    Regardless, it’s the neocons. Maybe not “purely” and simply, but at least … Ivory-soap level purely and simply. (I.e., 99 and 44/100% pure.)

    • Replies: @donut
    , @Truthful
    , @JOe
  11. Maj. Kong says:
    @Sam J.

    That’s too simplistic. How do you explain the power of Saudi Arabia, which is responsible for the oil price drops. Or explain why Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is quite friendly with Putin.

    Ethnic animosity on the part of Eastern Europe-descended Jews in America, isn’t the largest explanation, though it certainly is part of the story.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @Sam J.
  12. KA says:

    Don’t we live in interesting times? We do. How long.? God knows?
    Weste hurts the economic interests of Germany. West spies on Merkel. West has prevented Germany from doing business with Iran and now Russia It has cost Germany billions . Germany continues to carry the political,defense,and economic water for Israel.
    Merkel like the abused laborer comes home drunk and beats the wife for she doesn’t have the guts to stand up to the abusers outside . A pathetic moron who should have never been put on the shelf for any life.

    • Replies: @Dude
  13. Chiron says:

    You left out the most important factor in this. The 800 lb gorilla or 2 ton elephant in the room. Jewish power. This has been a Jewish War on Russia from day one. Look at the cast of characters in terms of both pundits and political players.

    Some say Conservatives are rattling their sabers at Putin because they hark back to the Cold War days when things were simpler. Not so. They are bitching about Putin for the same reason they bitch about Palestinians. To win Jewish support and money. Conservatives know that Jews are the most powerful people in America with a lock on many top institutions. They know that the great majority of Jews are Democrats and Liberals. They know that many Jews don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues that are important to Conservatives.

    So, Conservatives try to over-compensate on foreign policy to win over Jews. If Democrats are 99% pro-Israel, GOP tries to be 200% pro-Israel. If Dems have just a smidgen of sympathy for Palestinians, Republicans pretend that Palestinians are the new Nazis who must be ground to dust. If Democrats are anti-Russian, Republicans try to outdo the Democrats by making Putin out to be new Stalin-Hitler-Ming-the-Merciless.

    It’s all about groveling. We live in a country where a freak like Sheldon Adelson can casually say we should drop a nuke on Iran but still gets to play an important role in politics. Notice not a single Republican called out on his craziness. They are all running dog slaves of Jews, and so their foreign policy agenda is molded to pander to Jews.

    Jews hate Russia because Putin has stood for majority culture, heritage, religion, patriotism, and national identity. He’s been good to Jews, but he’s stressed the importance of Russian identity and culture above all in Russia. He’s not anti-minority, but he thinks Russians should be proudly pro-Russian. If we use the logic of Putin-ism, every European nation should stress its own national identity, culture, and heritage instead of ‘diversity’, ‘multi-culturalism’, ‘white guilt’, and worship of the Holocaust as the new religion. This is why Jews hate Putin. Not because Putin has been anti-Jewish — if anything, he’s been overly generous to Jews — but because he’s been pro-Russian. In the US, Jews love it when white folks praise Jews and Jewish culture/history/religion/identity(along with homosexuals) to high heaven, but they get very upset when there is even the slightest peep about white identity, white interests, white unity, and white power. And this is why Obama is with Jews on Russia. Obama has no personal animus against Putin. But as a black man as president in a white majority nation — and as his main allies are Jews and homos, both minority elites — , he also finds it alarming that Putin stands for majority identity, pride, unity, and power. He’s afraid that the Putin bug will spread throughout Europe and then may infect white folks in the US as well.

    That is why Jews have been working overtime to destroy Russia. It is why Jews have been promoting the likes of the Pussy Riot and Masha Gessen.

    Friedman is above all a Jewish supremacist. Paul Krugman is above all a Jewish supremacist. They are not just some abstract ‘liberals’. They are tribaliberals whose main identity is Jewish. Paul Krugman and Friedman feels more camaraderie with Jewish oligarchs in Russia than with working class Democrats or black underclass in America.

    Notice that Jews bitch about the oligarchic structure of Russia but overlook the fact that Russian Jews with the aid of American Jewish ‘advisers’ created the new order during the Yeltsin yrs. Putin inherited this order; he didn’t create it. Btw, given that US is run by the likes of Soros and Adelson, how is it not a form of oligarchy as well?

    And Jews don’t care about the suffering of the Russian middle class in Russia. If anything, they’ve feared the rise of a Russian middle class under Putin since middle class Russians would associate their improvement with Putinism. By destroying the middle class, Jews want to make Russian middle class hate Putinism and everything it stands for: nationalism, majority identity, Christianity, family values, etc.

    Jews were behind foreign policy during the Clinton years and what did they do to Iraq? Sanctions killed 100,000s of women and children. Madeleine Albright is a criminal like Kaganovich, the Jewish henchman of Stalin who killed millions in Ukraine during the Great Famine.

    Jews didn’t care about dead Ukrainians. They didn’t care about dead Iraqis. They don’t give a damn about dead Palestinians. Under Obama, Jews undermined stability in Libya and Syria, creating conditions that led to deaths of over 200,000.

    So why would Jews care about Russians?

    Through most Jews are secular, their view of humanity is supremacist and out of the Old Book. Gentiles are seen as cannon fodder or expendable cattle in the service of Jewish supremacist power.

    America is now an evil nation whose culture amounts to something like this:

    It’s a nation where Wall Street sharks and Las Vegas crooks can get away with just about anything.

    This is a Jewish War on Russia. To be sure, Russians are also to blame for being lazy, confused, drunk, and slovenly. If Russians shape up like old Prussians, they can build a great nation. But too many are like ‘white trash’.

    Though Russia is facing very hard times, they can turn this into an advantage. Learn the hard lesson that it cannot depend on energy export alone. Build its own industries and form closer ties with the non-West. EU, like the US, is totally under the domination of Jewish power.

    If Russians are a great people, they will use the current hardship as a key lesson and build up their nation as more of an independent power. Problem is Putin is surrounded by many fifth columnists.

    The current film THE INTERVIEW is about American assassinating Kim Jong Un, but the guy whom Jews really want to assassinate is Putin. The likes of Nuland who subverted Ukraine will go to any length to destroy Russia so that Jews will take it over like Jews have taken over US and forced ‘gay marriage’ on it. Consider the recent Rolling Stone rape hoax article by Sabrina Rubin Erderly. She is the Victoria Nuland of American journalism. Just as Nuland hates Russia, American Jews hate white gentiles. Yet, American Conservatives are a bunch of craven toadies like Ted Cruz who line up to kiss the asses of scum like William Kristol.

    We need to speak the truth. This is not a liberal vs conservative thing. It is about Jewish supremacism. As Democratic Party is essentially a Jewish party, its main goal is to further Jewish power. As GOP is eager to win over more favors and money from Jews, it goes out of way to bark rabidly at perceived enemies of Jews. GOP is a toady of Jewish power. If Jews hate Russia, let’s bark at Russia, so thinks the GOP. If Jews hate Palestinians, let’s dump on Palestinians and laugh at thousands of Palestinian women and children killed by Israeli bombs.

    • Replies: @Sam
    , @Marcelo
  14. KA says:
    @Maj. Kong

    “How do you explain Saudi ” oil policy?
    Saudi never liked Soviet or Russia. Afghanistan ,Chechenya and recent threat to Sochi Olympic are the example. Does Saudi do it with any inherent power or does it engage in anti Soviet activities for that is what US wants ?

    Saudi couldn’t stop 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq. It couldn’t stop anti Saudi rhetorics after 911 . It couldn’t put pressure on US to accept Saudi initiated proposals for the Israel -Palestine peaceniks 2002 ,proposed on the basis of American position It could not make US accept the proposals that were meant to bring Hamas and PA together in 2004-2007 .
    Saudi has more power than Bahrain, or Morocco,or Pakistan but not more than that wielded by Israel or India . Saudi is dependent on US for survival. Someone always guarding against potential overthrow by public cant be dictating to the world’s only military superpower and it doesn’t .

  15. Jay says:

    Sons of Confederate Veterans. Really? And Russell Kirk? Really? Come on serious readers, the author of the above screed is no fan of the European Enlightenment nor of the equalizing influences there from. What we have here is what I refer to as a “Dark Christian,” one who wallows in the belief of original sin and reads St. Augustine for fun. No doubt Martin Luther is his hero, and Russell Kirk would no doubt be smiling from his grave. This abysmal account of Putin and his intentions ought send shivers down our backs in so far as it sees the world as an intensely evil place–and yes, this was a major concern of Solzhenitsyn as it was of Kirk. Such is the traditional concern of traditional “classical” conservatives: indeed, the French Revolution is still alive to them, as here was the presence of unfettered chaos that still threatens the West. Indeed, the presence of gays is symptomatic of this chaos: up is down, and down is up. No city upon a hill, but rather cosmic catastrophe unless the world returns to a medieval Christian mentality: Christendom! It ain’t gonna happen, so get used to the idea that in 2015 and beyond the belief in the sole voice of authority, God, has been replaced by the voices of multitude, and although those voices can stumble, better a stumble than the presence of an authoritarian One. Edmund Burke is dead, so get over it. Welcome to the 21st century, and with all of its challenges, we will need active engagement to resolve what ails us, not a return to some fantasy era of “Dark Christianity” in which fallen mankind retreats to the Bible and monastery. This is precisely the same sensibility that drives the likes of ISIS, and see how perfect their creation has turned out for those who disagree. Do we really want another Inquisition, too. No, time to move on.

    • Replies: @Dude
    , @Anonymous
  16. Realist says:

    Unit472 is defective.

    • Replies: @donut
    , @Z-man
  17. Larry says:


    Thanks for the great article. This hatred towards Russia is because Putin is in the way of the Jewish controlled US and NATO plan called “new world order” in which the Judaists will fulfill their prophesy to rule all mankind using their proxies USA and NATO. Putin wants to stand up and does not want Russia to become a puppet of USA and NATO, so they hate him and are telling lies against him.

    So why are most whites Russian and must adore mother Russia?

    Because whites are “Caucasians” and their origins have been traced to the Caucasus mountains—which are in Greater Russia! These whites (who called themselves “Aryans” but are now called “Indo-europeans” due to Nazi use of the previous word) went west and settled in a place they named Aryaland (now called Ireland). They went south and settled in a place they named Aryaan (Iran) where they mixed somewhat with darker races. They spoke a language now called PIE (Proto-Indo-European) from which Greek/Latin/Russian/Sanskrit/Persian and thence English are derived.

    Their gene R1a1 is found in about 50% of the white people to this day.

    See the book by Mallory: In search of the Indo-Europeans.

    See the website: “The peopling of Europe”

    See Wikipedia (run by Judaists themselves):

    That is why we must love and adore mother Russia, as we are all Russians!

  18. Jim says:

    Our own leaders are just as much liars and jerks as Putin. We assured the Russians that NATO would not be expanded and then double-crossed them. We have intervened all over the world including it the Ukraine and then complain about Putin’s intervention in an area that is predominantly Russian.

    Our foreign policy seems to be based on Jewish tribalism rather than an intelligent evaluation of the interests of ordinary Americans.

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It is good to know that the core supporters of Putin come from the fanatic western fundamentalist and not from the rational thinkers ! Putin is fine as long as he upholds Christian values and the white western power over the rest! Zio has upended the plan and the hope . One set of vile intention has been destroyed by another set of vile quislingesque activity. Good for the rest.

    Putin has been shown by the west that he is welcome as long as he doesn’t put up a fight with the west over powers projecting abroad or near the borders.PUTIN did abdicate his reonsibiloties as UN veto wielding power in numerous conflicts . His hope was to be accted as equal hegemonic power but that could not happen on the Zio watch who figured it out that the conflicts would put Russia against US sooner or later . Putin should have anticipated that after 2008 but decided to ignore and cooperate with the west .

  20. Jason says:


    This hatred towards Russia is caused by the Judaists who control all 3 branches of our govt. and the media, because Putin is in the way of the new world order, a Jewish plan to fulfill their prophesy in their religious texts in which the Judaists will rule the world, first by using their proxies such as USA and NATO, and then directly.

    Judaists (who are mostly whites) believe that they are “Jews”, who descended from Abraham (Avram). They base this on their Torah (Old Testament, OT). According to the OT, Avram sold his wife Sarai to an African and therefore black pharaoh. Avram himself was probably a black man, if he even existed. Abraham was from the Ur of the Chaldees and the “Chaldeans were negroid” (–Sir Godfrey Higgins).

    Judaists worship Moshe (an Egyptian, therefore African and Negro) as their prophet.

    In fact, most Judaists are whites who ancestors converted to Judaism in the middle ages. Most of them are descendants of the Khazars, a kingdom located in Russia (modern Ukraine). See the book “13th tribe” by Koestler, available online now.

    Also see:

    The fact is that the Torah is a “forgery” (McCabe) and “spurious” (Thomas Paine). Moshe never existed. His story is copied from the older African myth of Mises/Sargon. Exile and Exodus never happened. See: “Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho” (by Prof. Ze’ev Herzog of the Dept. of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University).

    Under the delusion they are “Jews”, descendants of an African (and therefore black) Abraham, Judaists start hating their own ancestral motherland—Russia!

  21. Matra says:

    It is Angela Merkel who is leading the EU’s effort to impose sanctions on this man… not the neocons.

    The Americans who post here don’t believe non-Americans have agency so they will not believe it. But, yes, there has been a sea change in German attitudes towards Russia. This time last year no one in Germany (and hardly anyone else in Europe) favoured Ukrainian membership of either the EU or NATO. Even after Putin took Crimea the Germans made it clear Ukraine had no future in either organisation. That is when typical Russian stupidity came into play. Undisguised Russian lies (some of it infantile trolling) about their role in the Ukrainian war and MH17 followed by bullying the Baltics, insane anti-Finnish propaganda, irresponsible talk about nuclear weapons, and aggressive probing of Scandinavian air defenses have all but destroyed Russia’s image in Europe. Now even Germany’s previously pro-Russian business community have, in general, turned against Russia and now support sanctions. Putin has lost Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and most of Eastern Europe but at least he’s gained the undying love of Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts!

  22. A good article with information on Putin in Leningrad during the attempted KGB coup that I hadn’t heard before.The readers’ comments so far haven’t been up to the same level though. Too much much about Jews for one thing.

    In my opinion, Putin is being targeted above all because, under his leadership, Russia is failing to submit to the “Euro-Atlantic consensus” led by Washington. President de Gaulle got himself into the same sort of trouble decades ago and they said many of the same things about him then that they say about Putin now.

    De Gaulle was pushed into retirement by the original ’68ers and the Euro-Atlantic consensus looked on and smiled. That turned out to be the start of a beautiful friendship between the libertine New Left and the Bilderberg types. That’s roughly the same coalition who can’t stand Putin and say, with some evidence, they represent our West.

  23. PeterB says:

    Putin is doing what he’s supposed to do as president of his country; that’s what he’s there for. He’s helped to rebuild the state up from the low point it hit just slightly more than twenty years ago, building up the economy and improving the standard of living, strengthening the state so that it can credibly deter would-be aggressors. It wasn’t that long ago that they literally collapsed: incomes, pensions, jobs were wiped out and many people were pauperized; criminality and mafia-type gangs emerged, prostitution, suicide, drug use and alcoholism soared. Life expectancies dropped to shocking levels, in the 50’s for men, and families almost stopped having children. Public property, paid for by the citizenry, was privatized and looted for a pittance by the infamous oligarchs. From that they’ve bounced back to being a major world power. It’s not Putin’s role to kowtow to any foreign powers if it goes against the interests of his own country.
    Much hot air has been floated about him: he’s stolen billions, he’s ‘just like’ Hitler or perhaps Stalin, he’s a madman, and so on. Any American dissenting from this line is attacked by trolls claiming that they’re on the payroll of Putin as if he were personally sending out envelopes full of rubles worldwide. The shrillness of the rhetoric has reached absurd levels. The gay rights angle is some really weak tea; they’re grabbing at anything now, possibly out of frustration. Putin is nothing if not completely rational; all that he’s done has been rational and predictable. They’re not going to knuckle under to threats and bluster, that much is clear. Times have changed; it’s not 1992 anymore.

    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
  24. Dutch Boy says:

    I’ll pass on the Putin hagiography. The point is that whatever you think of Putin and his policies, they are not a threat to any legitimate American interests. Absent such a threat, provocative policies against Russia (Putin or no Putin) are foolish and potentially dangerous (like prodding a rattlesnake that poses no threat otherwise).

    • Replies: @rod1963
  25. Larry says:


    I want to add another important reason the Judaists hate Russia—Israel.

    The Judaists own and operate all 3 branches of our govt. and the media. The Judaists see Iran and Syria as a threat to Israel that must be eliminated, and Russia supports both of them, so they are going after Russia and Putin directly. By eliminating Putin and Russia, they believe they can then eliminate Syria and Iran, and make the middle east totally safe for Israel, where Israel can kill and terrorize the Middle East and maybe the whole world with impunity.

  26. Mark Green says: • Website

    Russia is being targeted by Zio-Washington because of Putin’s alliance with Syria and Iran. America’s seething hostility towards Russia has ‘Made In Israel’ all over it. This is just another Israeli hit. Expect more.

  27. Mr. Blank says:

    Putin is doing what he’s supposed to do as president of his country; that’s what he’s there for.

    I agree. I’m no fan of the guy, but he is neither a monster nor a mystery. The weird hatred for him in much of the West is profoundly misplaced.

  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Do you always assume that anyone who disagrees with you works for Russian intelligence? How about your wife when she disagrees?

    • Replies: @Twit
  29. Twit says:

    Yes I do. I can’t help . You should have stopped me watching TV and listening to Hannity or Rush Limbaugh .

  30. donut says:

    He’s an echo chamber for the MSM .

  31. donut says:

    The fag rights hysteria is for domestic consumption.

  32. @Boyd D. Cathey
    May I suggest you write your own Wikipedia entry?

    When I Googled you, the first entry was from SPLC.

    • Replies: @Jeff Albertson
  33. rod1963 says:
    @Dutch Boy


    But it truly baffles me that the likes of Merkel and Obama think its just fine to screw with Putin. He isn’t threatening us and he isn’t messing around with American interests yet we persist in demonizing him and trying to push him into a corner.

    And given our track record, it won’t turn out good for us or the EU if we go too far. This isn’t some mud culture in the ME we’re screwing with and Putin isn’t some serial bulls**t artist like our political class. It could easily go bad for us, real fast.

  34. Sam says:


    Great article and a nice comment by Peltfast. Good!

  35. @North Carolina Resident

    Wikipedia is good on most noncontroversial topics. For a more realistic assessment of foreign affairs and economics, I recommend any respectable mainstream outlet, and simply reverse their conclusions. That’s how we had to make do before Al Gore invented the internet.

    • LOL: Ace
    • Replies: @Wally
  36. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    One point I think that’s being missed is that the American media and American elite are vehemently pro-Obama. They protect Obama from anything that looks like hostility and they’re always careful to keep their wagons circled around him. But Putin thinks Obama is an ineffectual baboon, and what’s worse, makes him look like one in public. That alone makes Putin the enemy to a lot of Americans (including Obama). I think it’s not properly understood how deeply psychologically crazy the Obama cult is. It’s every bit as nutty as the cult around Kim Jong-un, except that the latter has a lot more coercive state power.

  37. axel says:

    Unit 472- Clearly you haven’t read Putin’s speeches or taken in the facts of his actions. Next to our own leaders, what Putin is saying and has been doing has been a breath of fresh. These always include fact-based- albeit blunt- narratives grounded in reality, and clear headed analyses of what Russia has been proposing and doing. Would that we had the same from our own leaders in the Administration or Congress.

    Read what he is saying, and watch what he is doing, not what the mainstream media intent on demonizing him is saying he is saying and doing.

    And, sorry, I’m not a paid Putin operative- I’m a loyal American concerned about the future of my country, family and the rest of the world (including Russia).

  38. KA says:

    Israel has the brothel capital . The most trafficked nation is Israel. The victims are from East European and African places . India has been both a victim and a perpetrator. But it is the glorious nation Israel that stands out in whole world holding the shining beacon to the girls to come and be used .

  39. KA says:

    “Despite having vast power, the neocons seem to be in perpetual anxiety. They’re like fleas on a beautiful dog—constantly worried about being scratched off.”
    Can Putin secure the dog from these infestations by these tribal monolithic war mongers fleas?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  40. Matra says:

    Mr Cathey

    Do you believe that the imprisonment of the apolitical Oleg Navalny, to get at his brother, anti-corruption campaigner Alexei, is an example of Russia’s new conservative Christian values? It looks a lot more like an old Soviet tactic. Navalny is not exactly a pro-American liberal. From his Wikipedia page:

    The BBC noted in a profile of Navalny that his endorsement of a political campaign called “Stop Feeding the Caucasus” and his willingness to speak at ultra-nationalist events “have caused concern among liberals.”

    Navalny is agitating on behalf of aggressive anti-immigration policies

    As we all now know Putin is very liberal on immigration – flooding western cities with Asians.

    Early in 2012 Navalny stated on Ukrainian TV that “Russian foreign policy should be maximally directed at integration with Ukraine and Belarus… In fact, we’re one nation. We should enhance integration.”

    The pro-Kremlin blogs and Putin’s libertarian advocates who swoon over all Putin’s other actions have been silent so far on the Navalny case.

    • Replies: @schmenz
    , @Anonymous
  41. Sam J. says:
    @Maj. Kong

    Why would I have to explain the power of Saudi Arabia? They have a lot of oil. A side note. Have you ever considered the idea that the house of Saud is Jewish? Yeah I know it sounds crazy but they and Israel do seem to be together when large issues are at stake. Has there ever been a time where the Saudi’s funded anyone or anything that threatened the root security of Israel? I’m not saying they are but it has crossed my mind. Now you’re saying “what madness” but stranger things have happened. Like the Jewish homosexual pedophile that ran the Nazi party in the US. A story so odd I couldn’t have made it up and didn’t. Jews are an extremely weird people and to think in a linear Western European way about them is folly.

    “…explain why Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is quite friendly with Putin…”

    Uuhh, he’s a good actor. Even better he’s a psychopath. The best actors on the planet.

    “…Ethnic animosity on the part of Eastern Europe-descended Jews in America, isn’t the largest explanation…”

    Doesn’t matter WHERE they’re from. Their Jews. Anyone who thwarts their collection of power is the enemy.

    PeaceLover says,”Victoria Nulland and Geoff Pyatt are both jews.”

    I know. I don’t get it. So? They hate Putin.

    The Jews are a very strange people. Very strange. I think part of regaining control of our country is to find out why they are what they are. This is very much a Henry David Thoreau,”There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”. People have commented on this constantly on how we are run by the Jews and we never seem to make headway. They run our country. They put up a Menorah on the White house lawn while we’re not allowed a cross. This is the most absurd thing I can possibly imagine and shows exactly who’s in charge.

    I believe the Jews are what THEY say they are. Different. First. I believe the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all, maybe not even the majority but a substantial number. If you take into account this fact, the behavior of the Jews will never surprise you.

    Psychopaths are a troublesome bunch. This would account for the Talmud. It’s a training manual for psychopaths. You can do what you want to others but watch out for us the psychopaths/Jews. Lots of little rules as psychopaths have no inborn mental map to follow. The basic gist of the whole Talmud is that everyone will be their servants and they will own all the possessions. If that’s not a psychopathic idea I don’t know what is.

    Maybe it’s even more to it than that. I’m not sure about what I’m writing next but I’m beginning to strongly suspect it to be true. From,

    He says the Jews have a high percentage of Neanderthal. That this makes them aggressive. Read his first page. It makes sense to me because the Jews in charge in many cases look like Neanderthals. I got this idea from many places being just one. He said it first of course. There’s others. Look at this page on Zana who was a Neanderthal/ Homo Erectus/ ???? that had children by normal humans, then look at her children. Familiar looking?

    Unfortunately some of the pictures are gone on this page.

    Now look at Eric Hufschmid’s Neanderthal page. Make sure and follow the Neanderthal index page link at the top of the page.

    This would readily explain their complete hatred for all non-Neanderthals. They are really different.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam J.

    As regards Zana, it has been proven by DNA analysis that she was of African ancestry. So she was not a neanderthal. There was a historical community of Africans(probably ex-slaves) in Abkazia

    It is true though, that modern non-Africans do carry a % of neanderthal DNA.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  43. @Fake Name

    Yes, that’s right: he’s the nationalist and our prez is the imperialist.

  44. schmenz says:


    Perhaps this might help you:

    It is not as simplistic as you might imagine.

  45. Matra says:

    It is not as simplistic as you might imagine

    Nothing is ever as simplistic as RT would have you believe. That article you linked to is like reading the NY Times on Ferguson.

    • Replies: @schmenz
  46. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Orthodox Christian churches traditionally are subordinate to the state. While the Roman Church traditionally claimed to be equal in authority to the state or sovereign. Even still, Western Christianity and conservative Christian values are not incompatible with authoritarian government and often flourished under authoritarianism.

    Navalny may not be a pro-American liberal, but presumably he’s supported by the US to further pro-American liberal ends. Just as the Afghan mujahideen, who weren’t pro-American liberals, were supported in the 1980s by the US to further pro-American liberal foreign policy aims.

    American foreign policy elites want the Russian Federation broken up and replaced with nominally independent states, with Russia proper confined to west of the Urals and north of the Caucasus and reduced to a minor state without a military-complex and command of vast resources capable of rendering it an independent power and security challenge. Russia and the other newly independent states would then be integrated under a US-NATO led Eurasian security architecture. Presumably Navalny is supported by the US in part simply because he’s a dissident against the Russian state, and because his more nationalist, “little Russia” politics is regarded as amenable with these broader US foreign policy objectives for Russia and the Eurasia region, although presumably Navalny himself doesn’t want this diminished and reduced role and capacity for Russia but wants it just with a much more nationalist politics.

  47. Wally says: • Website

    What happens when Putin comes forward to repeal an Orwellian law which prevents free speech about it and then admits what thinking Russians already know about it, that being Soviet Russia’s efforts in manufacturing & distributing so much of the propaganda about the impossible but profitable ‘holocaust’ scam?

    Tread lightly Zionists / Jewish supremacists, Putin has lightning in his hands.

    ‘Made in Russia ‘The Holocaust’ Carlos Whitlock Porter’

    The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter

    Not to mention Russia’s efforts to cast aside the dollar as the main currency of exchange, witness their deals with China and movements in other parts of Asia and the Middle East.

    Russia has reached the point of having nothing left to lose thus making the Zionist / US influence less & less a factor. If the US had significant economic investments in Russia we would have significant influence, what influence we did have has been stupidly sanctioned away. Other than bullying Europe to impose sanctions, which has hurt Europe tremendously, real US options are very limited.

    I would not be the least bit surprised to see Russia directly intervene in Ukraine resulting in re-integration of the eastern Ukraine provinces back into Russia. Russia now has little to lose, so why not?

  48. Sam J. says:

    “…As regards Zana, it has been proven by DNA analysis that she was of African ancestry…”

    Maybe she was Homo erectus. The hairiness and tolerance for cold seems to rule out a normal African. Of course the whole story could be a lie. What caught my eye was the skull shape of her children and that they were mathematically inclined.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  49. Sam J. says:

    …As regards Zana…”

    Also her children look nothing like a half White half Black person. None that I’ve ever seen. If a scientist tells you an animal is a cow and it looks like an elephant. What do you believe? How many degrees does it take to say a person looks nothing like what all other examples look like?

  50. Sam J. says:

    I found another page that has Sykes saying,”…“Bryan noticed some unusual features on Khwit’s skull,” Mark Evans narrates, “very wide eye sockets and an elevated brow ridge that could suggest ancient, as opposed to modern, human origins. And he was starting to toy with a thought-provoking alternative notion.”

    Sykes then shares it: “Maybe she isn’t an African of recent origin at all but one from a migration out of Africa many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years ago, and she comes from a relict population…”

    So from Africa doesn’t mean from slaves from the Black Sea and Zana’s children look nothing like the Abkhazians of African descent .

  51. I really have no idea what most of the readers’ comments here are even talking about. As I scroll through them, they seem like excerpts from the dream diary of a mad anthropologist. What does all this have to do with President Vladimir Putin of Russia?

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  52. schmenz says:

    So assuming that you read the article (there was about an hour’s time lapse between my comment and your follow up) I would be interested in what would be your counter arguments to the facts printed in the article.

  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    I inadvertently triggered the August Coup in 1991. The coup was the result of a vendetta between myself and KGB boss Vladimir Kryuchkov. An account of what really happened was published by Nezavisimaya Gazeta ten years after the coup.
    The Romanians named a car after me: the Dacia Logan.
    Putin has been anathematized because of his refusal to submit to Jacob Rothschild in 2003. The world is being held to ransom by the Rothschild mafia. It’s as simple as that.

  54. Sam J. says:
    @Cagey Beast

    I got a laugh out of that 🙂 Oops. Sorry. Got off track.

  55. I lived in Russia for twelve years, leaving in 2009, so maybe I have more reason to comment than most and more experience than most as well of Russian reality, which Westerners (spoiled to death by welfare and luxury) cannot easily grasp.

    First of all, the man Lynch referred to in the article: what the hell does he know? He talks about Putin’s modest attire? O yeah? Watches that cost thirty years of salary for Russians outside Moscow and St. Petersburg; designer label stuff that costs a fortune: he isn’t covered with gold spangles like the homosexual Liberace but “modest” hardly fits the bill.

    And incorrupt? What a laugh: the mother of his children, a former air stewardess, about a year or two into his reign, was reported to own 25% of shares in MTS, Russia’s biggest mobile phone operator. How does that happen, pray?

    I am myself a Traditionalist Catholic, the opposite of a liberal or leftie in most things. Yet I detest how an element of the Catholic Traditionalist movement feels moved to support this man.

    This is the situation: he inherited an unholy mess (I mean that literally). He played his cards as well as he could and was lucky to have high oil prices on his side for a decade and more. I didn’t like the man much from Day One, but anything at all was better than Russia in the 1990’s when the vori v zakone ruled the nation. He fought one battle for all of us in the war against Islam and won it, thanks be to God. It wasn’t pretty but it had to be done.

    Yet it’s all going pear-shaped as things so often do in Russia. So many chances and opportunities have been missed by Putin to diversify and broaden the economy. He has become arrogant and has clearly developed the usual Russian mystical nationalistic mania that has blighted Russia for centuries. he has become dangerous. The vori v zakone have been replaced by the KGB who are Russia’s rulers and its greatest bandits.

    What’s driving Putin and the hard-line “war” party around him?

    * Hatred and envy — these are the two defining characteristics of Russians. Well done, atheism.
    * Knowledge that they are, as ever, 100 years behind the West and there’s no catching up.
    * Their boundless greed and an unlimited cynicism.

    Luckily the West even in its advances liberal-secular decrepitude has woken up to the fact that Putin has gone bonkers and is currently teaching him not to get above his station in life.

    Quite right too.

    • Replies: @schmenz
    , @Anonymous
    , @Dude
    , @anon
  56. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam J.

    @Sam. There was a British TV documentary some time ago. They exhumed the body of her son Khvit and DNA tested his teeth. They established that he had sub-Saharan African DNA. They calculated that his mother had been a full-blood sub-Saharan African.

    So not neanderthal or homo erectus.

  57. Truthful says:

    Unit472, man you do a bad job by citing totally wrong facts. Merkel was from the time she was still an opposition leader already totally pro-USA. She visited at that time Bush to give him her support for the Irak war. She has never been close to Russia or Putin: all propaganda.

    The Ukraine putsch was a orchestrated CIA plot with the Ukrainian nazis. See the video of Nuland’s 5 billion and the ‘maidan-bullits’. Furthermore, see the video of Komoloyskyi the Ukrainian and pro-USA oligarch with his own pro Nazi militia wherein he stated the MH17 as a trifle, as a mistake shooting down the wrong plane (the wrong plane: should have been the plane of Putin) and laughing about it.

    Your comment on the weapons is incorrect. Weapons are smuggled everywhere and a lot were taken from the Ukr. military as Prokoschenko himself admitted several times.

    So unit472: get you act together and defend you Satan better.

  58. Truthful says:

    You are absolutely right in : ‘A great comment in my opinion at least. Gone wrong only at the very end seeing Putin’s antipathy towards homosexuality as explaining anything’.

    Furthermore I would say: This is s distraction from the exceptionalism and hegemony goal of the american character and culture. The most personified by the neocons, but not only by them. A lot of the mainstream follow this goal too, because it can bring them success and profit. And this is the goal and character of an american in general: every man can become a billionaire (whatever it takes: where under the genocide of the native americans). It is the survival, which implies hegemony and exceptionalism, of the fittest!!.

  59. Ron says:
    @Sam J.

    I totally agree with you – when Lenin took over in Russia, 56 out of 59 in his governing council were Jews and the other 3 were married to Jews. Soon, nearly everyone in an important position in Russia was a Jew. Just like Germany in the thirties and in the USA today. See –

    The Rev Denis Fahey was an Irish priest who was in Russia at the time and was shocked to see the number of Jews in administrative positions under Lenin. He wrote a book about it in 1937 that has been mostly suppressed until lately. It is called “The Rulers of Russia”. He was dismissed as an anti-semite for merely pointing out the facts. Sounds familiar ?

    Then under Yeltsin the so-called Jewish oligarchs looted Russian privatization with Western Jewish money and also in other Soviet countries. Now, with Putin at the helm, the Jews are having a difficult time influencing Russia so the US Neocons (mostly right-wing Jews) are angry with him. The US Jewish-controlled government, media and think-tanks are therefore going after Putin and discrediting him in many ways. The same old story – and we can suspect that it will end badly as in the past.

  60. schmenz says:
    @Tony Hammond

    Tony: I appreciate your insights, even if some of them seem to veer into the category of gossip. You lived in Russia from 1986-2009, if I’m doing the math right. That being the case you were there before the official fall of Communism and during the Yeltsin years. Given that, I am kind of surprised you did not mention anything about Mr Yeltsin the man who “gave away the store” to a number of Godzilla-sized Oligarchs, a number of whom fled to Israel when Mr Putin decided to put an end to the selling off of Russia’s patrimony to International Finance.

    Your charge of corruption entails his ex-wife’s “reported to own 25%, etc.” I’m not quite sure how that involves corruption, but for the sake of argument, let us say that it does. The next logical step would be for you to answer the question: “reported” by who? The Russian press? Your next door neighbor? Masha Gessen? I would need some more details here before pronouncing the term “corruption”. The same goes for the expensive watch he owns. Details? (Last year the Obamas cost the taxpayers several Billion dollars flying them around on vacations. An envious Putin might retort “I’m the President of Russia and all I get is this nice expensive watch!”)

    OK, humor aside, let’s get down to basics. I am a Catholic, too. I don’t canonize Mr Putin. But my “sensus Catholicus” tells me that there is something potentially good happening in that once sad land and that Mr Putin may have something to do with it. I am always intrigued by the videos of the recent meeting between Putin and Pope Francis. When staring at a gorgeous icon, a gift from Putin to the Pope, Francis stands there looking confused while Putin very naturally and un-ostentatiously bends over to kiss the icon and makes the sign of the cross. It took the Pope a few moments to do likewise. A small matter? Perhaps.

    It will take a long time for Russia to be freed from a century of atheism but anyone who cannot see the pendulum turning back from that despair is simply not paying attention. We Catholics, especially those of us who value our 2,000 years of tradition, have often been forgetful of the fact that today’s Russia is not the Communist Russia of yore. I see a troubling attitude in far too many Catholic blogs that refuses to let go of the old anti-Communist crusade. While there is a great deal of healing still needed in Russia and even as, alas, far too many Russians and Orthodox despise Catholicism, I will continue to pray for them and hope that the machinations of our rather foul government in trying to destroy Russia will be thwarted.

  61. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Angela Merkel is, at the end of the day, a loyal servant of the USA. Remember she supported the Iraq invasion at a time when Gerhard Schroder opposed it. Schroder had reduced neocons in America to a blind fury because he was friendly with Russia and opposed the Iraq war. The old neocon Tom Lantos called Schroder a “prostitute” because of his Russia connections.

    Neocon pawprints are all over this mess in Ukraine. Ms Nuland is married to one of the top PNAC neocons, Robert Kagan.

  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tony Hammond

    Tony, you are so right about Putin. He’s nothing more than a white washed KGB thug. The ROC is a state controlled thing that is used as an active agency of espionage against the West. Toby Westerman and Cliff Kincaid have given plenty of proof Russia merely exchanged the Soviet sheepskin for a new one to cover up the wolf beneath it. What boggles my mind is that a Southern website would buy this act. During the Civil War, the Czar sent warships to Union ports to back up Lincoln’s war efforts. If the Russians are “friendly” toward Southern political movements now, it’s probably because they see a chance to increase their influence among gullible Americans, just like they did in the Cold War period.

  63. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Dude – shameful response.

  64. Dude says:

    Unit 472: Dude – shameful response.

  65. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Excellent article. Apart from political or military reasons which US and its puppets hate Russia under Putin’s leadership, I can see a greater picture. We are in a Great Battle now: Devil versus God.
    Make no mistake, we are witnessing a spiritual war which is most evident in our time than ever before. Everyone has to make a choice now. You can’t serve both God and Devil. Putin is on God’s side and I admire him for that. God bless him and every faithful Christian.

  66. Dude says:

    A de-sensitization and eventual opposition to objective morality appears to be what you are unwittingly championing . What comes next? marrying your sister, your brother , your dog ? All in the name of freedom and rights ? Won’t be long till the homo paedos will brainwash you into supporting NAMBLA and other such movements which exist in the Darkness of the homofascist habitats.

    Your tirade and medieval comparisons are objectionable as well as utter nonsense !

  67. Dude says:
    @Tony Hammond

    * Hatred and envy — these are the two defining characteristics of Russians. Well done, atheism.
    * Knowledge that they are, as ever, 100 years behind the West and there’s no catching up.
    * Their boundless greed and an unlimited cynicism.

    I think you betray your own lack of partiality with these statements. As a traditionalist Catholic myself , your views are very un Christian nevermind Catholic. Putin is far from a saint, but he is no worse than the politico filth in the West and at least is trying to better things for his own nation despite the paranoia elsewhere about what his successes bring and what intentions are.

    Oh and I have lived in Russia myself so I am qualified as you are to comment on Russians.

    Your comments above are irrational, bigoted nonsense –

    • Replies: @Tony Hammond
  68. @Dude

    As soon as the “bigoted” word is used, one can safely ignore the comment made and the commentator altogether, because nothing of any usefulness is being said.

    Russia is an utterly corrupt kleptocracy run by bandits. Putin sits at the top as abitrator of the completing criminal clans.

    Is that plain enough for you?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  69. Ron Unz says:
    @Tony Hammond

    “Sockpuppetry” is when a single individual posts under a variety of different names and email addresses in order to pretend his views are much more widespread than they actually are.

    It really isn’t proper behavior for commenters on a website.

  70. In France the anti-Putin campaign of the political establishment seems to have brought together a loose, pro-Putin faction that resembles the old Free French coalition. Putin is popular with Catholic patriotic types and the old school, blue collar types from communist families who resent the New Left agenda.

    The Germans seem to be going rogue too:
    “The information war for Ukraine” – Satirical German program “Die Anstalt” (Eng Subs)

    Die Anstalt – Ukraine Maidan with English subtitles

  71. Kiza says:

    @Ron Unz

    A master-stroke, that one. An amateur troll unit472 aka Hammond, because a professional would have used proxies for posting. Probably just a sexually frustrated loser who could not get along with magnificent Russian babes. His best is that whoever disagrees with him is a Kremlin’s paid agent.

    Thank you for this first class paleo-conservative article, which I almost missed due to summer holidays Downunder. I have been making the same point – that Putin and Western paleo-conservatives have much in common. If paleo-conservatives had any power in the US, there would be no conflict and no war on Russia and/or China – the World could be united around betterment for the majority (private property and private enterprise). As is, totally opposite is true: communism for the manipulators is the ruling system.

    I will definitely look for more articles by Mr. Cathey. His writing is like a reminder of what being an intellectual used to mean.

  72. Jake says:

    I would say that if unit472 is not a mindless swallower of Leftist/Neocon bilge or a homosexual, then he is Jewish. All 3 are more than possible.

    Merkel has become anti-Putin for the reasons Cathey states: she is pro-sodomite, as well as Liberal in almost every way that matters.

  73. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You inherited from Christians a vibrant and successful society that you and your whining comrades could never have built. You run it into the ground, because you have no morals. I would not be surprised if you were a homosexual. Atheism is a nice cop-out for them. The Russians know what to do with the likes of destroyers such as yourself.

  74. Milton says:

    Unit472 is a known State Department shill. Pay no attention to this bot.

  75. Giuseppe says:

    An excellent, sweeping view of the disinformation about Putin that has enlightened my understanding of the situation and changed my opinion. Cathey absolutely demolishes.

    Why aren’t these ideas expressed in the Sunday talk shows? Why has the news profession degenerated into propaganda and jingoism? Doesn’t anybody in the media bother to examine facts any more?

    I can only conclude that the Empire wants an enemy, and the media happily obliges.

  76. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Tony Hammond

    @Tony Hammond
    Quote: “He has become arrogant and has clearly developed the usual Russian mystical nationalistic mania that has blighted Russia for centuries. he has become dangerous.”

    That’s my very impression too, and that it’s got worse since the Putin’s presidency got resumed in 2012. I was born in Russia but left soon after Putin had been elected the first term. Last year I was catching up on Russian and Ukrainian news and politics since I can read Russian and Ukrainian. Putin has done a good job with the country but his popularity came at an expense of spreading nationalistic mania and hate, cracking down on independent media and building a new Iron Curtain (work in progress, more laws being adopted). People still have very Soviet mentality over there, which is about claiming superiority over everybody else in the world and hatred to anything Western. This rhetorics softened down with the fall of the Soviet system but got a second life during the Putin’s presidency. Including military threats (just watch that part where a man from a Russian government TV channel talks about turning Americans into radioactive dust – feels very uncomfortable to me). It’s incredible how this enormous pride can get along with Christianity! Everything bad that happens to Russia is caused by the Great Evil of the West. Some nationalists even see Putin himself as too Western and a Western agent. It’s a nationalistic genie out of the bottle where there is no real difference between pro-Putin and anti-Putin attitudes.

    I also got very confused at first with the clever propaganda machine. People over there don’t get access to word’s news other then being retold by government media, unless they are curious and know foreign languages. It’s like “Obama said that oil priced had been expected to drop” retold as “Obama caused the oil prices to drop”. But I myself can compare the sources and see what’s been “translated”. What came as a surprise was a great number of “analytic” and “personal” articles and comments on the internet which were just cleverly crafted propaganda. Some is silly stuff, like: the West is poor, filthy, crazy, European children are taught to have sex with gay adults, the communist regime has been planted into Russia by America, the USSR has been destroyed by America in 1991 (who cares about the contradiction). Some are much more clever, with solid looking facts and links, when you ask “what? this is interesting, I didn’t know that”. And then you do fact checking and see you’ve been fooled and this person indeed is not some “independent blogger”. And depicting the civil war in Ukraine as a “patriotic Russian war against fascism” is yet another story.

  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    So are all the main neocons. We have been neoconned. As Russell Kirk remarked, when it comes to Israel and the US, it is hard to tell which is the dog and which is the tail. The “international Jew” is the one great taboo subject in the US and now in Europe, and for good reason.

    • Replies: @Stephen Berk
  78. Marcelo says:

    Spare us of this “poor russians” drivel. Russia has persecuted religious leaders, tortured cristian priests and rabbis, when not killing them straight away for “anti-revolutionary activities”, killing millions upon millions of their own people in times of peace. Watch the documentary “The Soviet Story” here, Russia is and has been the moral anus of the world.

    • Replies: @Ace
  79. AP [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] says:

    Before one becomes to enamored of “conservative” Russia, bear in mind this country still has one of the world’s highest abortion rates (in 2008, 44.7% of pregnancies were aborted, a rate double that of the US and liberal countries such as France or the UK). It has a very high murder rate by non-African standards – 9.2 per 100,000 people, nearly double that of the USA’s 4.7. While Russians profess to be Orthodox, church attendance in Russia is comparable to that of Sweden and Germany – 30% to 40% of Russians never attend church. In Russia’s traditional enemy, Catholic Poland, this figure is less than 10%. In Ukraine, it is 10% to 20%. Russia’s divorce rate, 51%, is one of the world’s highest (though in this state the US does worse – 53%). In Ukraine it is 42%, in Poland 27%. Etc. etc. By virtually every measure, Russia is not conservative at all. But it does dislike gays, and its ex-KGB leader says nice things about traditional values in his speeches. Does that compensate for everything else?

    Odd that seemingly traditionalist Catholics are seeing in Russia some kind of savior. Even odder, some of them seem to be taking the Russian side as Russia has conflicts with truly conservative and traditional places such as its western neighbors.

    • Replies: @Afterthought
    , @NWOD
  80. @AP

    Who is more staunchly fighting for the values of most conservative Catholics? Putin, or the Pope?

    If your Catholic religion is more than a tribal identification, then you have to be for Putin.

    • Replies: @AP
  81. AP [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] says:

    Who is more staunchly fighting for the values of most conservative Catholics? Putin, or the Pope?

    If your Catholic religion is more than a tribal identification, then you have to be for Putin.

    When Russians (including Putin, who dumped is wife and mother of his children for some young reporter he impregnated) start walking the walk instead of merely talking the talk, you might have a point. It’s good that he doesn’t publically denigrate traditional values and says nice things about Christianity, but that is no substitute for the real thing. And it’s good that he has stood up for Christians in the Middle East. But Europe isn’t Syria.

    In Europe, the most devout, conservative, churchgoing people are in Poland and in western Ukraine. Within Ukraine, Putin was supporting the part of the country with the highest abortion rates, lowest church-going rates, highest murder rates, highest HIV rates, etc. etc. and trying to get this part of the country to dominate the conservative, churchgoing western part. Sorry, that’s not fighting for conservative values.

    The reality is that Putin doesn’t fight for conservative values but for the Russian State. Sometimes, this coincides with conservative values (i.e., helping Syria, promoting the Church in Russia). Often, it does not. And despite an approach that sometimes coincides with conservatism, Russian society itself, with its massive amount of abortions, high murder rate, low rate of church attendance, high divorce rate, etc. is not very conservative across many important measures and certainly much less conservative than its western neighbors.

  82. NWOD says:

    Merkel never said Putin is unable to “grasp reality”, she said he had a different “Weltanschauung” (which is somewhat akin to a mix of ideology and worldview). And compared to the satanic rulers of the West – he does have.

    Interesting about Merkel she is probably being blackmailed by US or Israel based on data interception – why else spy on her? (NSA shares all with Mossad, confirmed courtesy of Snowden documents.)

    Also interesting about Merkel, she was an avid Communist in her youth. Something not brought up nearly as often as Putin’s memberships, no doubt, as she knows whose orders to obey (i.e., those who control the Western media).

    And on you go to your profoundly insightful insights, garnered, no doubt, from spending many hours reading propaganda from Western media outlets who hate Putin for many of the reasons stated in this article (but most importantly, because he does not follow their orders).

  83. NWOD says:

    Superficial analysis. When considering any leader, it is imperative not to look at where his group is, but where it is heading. Putin cannot undo 80 years of Christian genocide in a few years, especially with the vast number of other problems his country faced – including the very loud, very lavishly funded (by satanists) and very aggressively supported (by the same group) “liberal” fifth column in Russia.

    I don’t know about your statistics, I know Russia was ruled by satanic priests for a long time and Putin is far from undoing their damage. But in the “West” the direction is unequivocally in the direction of more State-sponsored satanism and in Russia the trend has reversed. One is judged by his actions, not by the history he inherits.

    • Replies: @AP
  84. AP [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] says:

    Superficial analysis. When considering any leader, it is imperative not to look at where his group is, but where it is heading. Putin cannot undo 80 years of Christian genocide in a few years, especially with the vast number of other problems his country faced – including the very loud, very lavishly funded (by satanists) and very aggressively supported (by the same group) “liberal” fifth column in Russia.

    This is an old argument, and it has some merit. The problem is that whatever direction Russia is heading, is still very far from where it ought to be. Yes, Russia’s abortion rate has declined. It’s still the highest in the world. :

    It’s great that many Russian profess to be Orthodox Christians now. But church attendance is still on the same level as liberal Germany and Germany.

    We can list other sins, as I have done (murder rate, HIV rate, which tells us about moral problems such as prostitution, etc.).

    Opposing Russia, there are Poland and western Ukraine. Poland has the lowest abortion rate in the world, one of the lowest divorce rates, one of the lowest child-out-of-wedlock rates, etc. Western Ukraine is closer to Poland than to Russia.

    So there is a real conflict between a fundamentally, genuinely conservative places and Russia, a very liberal, immoral place.

    Yes, Russia was traumatized by communism. I’m sure a lot of criminals were abused as children too – that doesn’t justify their crimes. That doesn’t mean we take their side, rather than the victim’s side. If I see a criminal in a fight with a decent person, I’m not going to take the criminal’s side because he had a bad childhood, or because he’s a little bit not as bad as he was a few years ago. But, it seems, as long as the criminal says some nice words, you would take his side.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  85. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    And your point is what, exactly? Russia and Russians are bad and Putin is also bad. OK, you don’t like them, we get it. You have nothing to add to the discussion except to keep chiming in to trash them which moves the discussion nowhere.
    You don’t like Russians yet you use a Russian-sounding name for a handle. Why? Are you just another troll, “doctor”?

    • Replies: @AP
  86. AP [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] says:

    And your point is what, exactly? Russia and Russians are bad and Putin is also bad. OK, you don’t like them, we get it.

    Nope, my point is that Russians are by most measures not conservative at all and certainly less conservative than their western neighbors and rivals, and thus that a conservative who supports Russia in its European conflicts is either ignorant or hypocritical.

    Pointing out facts is not done to “trash” Russians but to provide evidence for my statements.

    You are, btw, acting like someone who complains when someone cites African-American murder rates in a debate involving race. I hope you are not a self-proclaimed conservative also?

    You, on the other hand, offer nothing but complaints and a personal attack in your post. Your statement about trolling is ironic.

  87. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Unit472 – your comments are of the “Don’t bore me with facts because I’ve already made up my mind” variety. Kind of like US foreign policy and the joy that’s brought to the world. You sound like a dangerous person to me (bet that gave you a glow) with no intellectual curiosity, so I won’t antagonize you any further. Go back to Foxtel and try to relax.

  88. @Anonymous

    That’s Nuland. I think it is important to distinguish between Jews and ardent neocon Zionists. Nuland and her husband, Robert Kagan, are Jewish in name only. Zionists violate virtually every moral in the Torah. Zionism is the disease. The Zionists made deals with Hitler wherein he would only permit them to leave Germany in the thirties if they went to Palestine. The Likud, whose American branch is the Neocons, is the lineal descendant of the Irgun, the Zionist terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel and conducted terrorism against innumerable Palestinians before the Zionist state came about. Their policy is total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians out of Israel, and Israel’s expansion to claim all Palestinian lands stolen in the 1967 war. If you want to see the difference between Judaism and Zionism, go to the website for True Torah Jews. These are Orthodox Jews who eloquently state how modern Zionism violates every tenet of genuine Judaism, based on the Torah and the prophetic writings. Please do not confuse Judaism with the crimes of modern state terrorist Zionism.

  89. @Anonymous

    I object strenuously to the term “the international Jew.” This smacks of Hitler buddy Henry Ford, who published the faked Protocol of the Elders of Zion in his Dearborn Independent. He also manufactured Ford trucks and tanks in Hitler’s Germany, which played a key role in war against the Allies. There is no “international Jew.” Jews are a very diverse ethnicity. The old saying is, “two Jews, three opinions.” Please do not let your rightful dislike of the militarist, imperialist neocons and the Israeli Zionists color your opinion of all Jews. That is falling for an oversimplified stereotype. Also there are bankers of every religious and ethnic background. The main financing of Hitler by Western bankers was by elite American and British White Anglo Protestants. See Francis Donnolly’s provocative documentary, “Everything Is a Rich Man’s Trick.”

  90. JOe says:

    “I at least haven’t and don’t see the Ukraine (or Georgia, or whoever else our anti-Putinista’s have lept to champion) being enamored of gay rights. ”

    You are correct about Ukraine and Georgia but last year there was at least one article in the Guardian I believe quoting the LGBT advocates rooting for the coup so that the EU could impose the homosexual agenda on Ukraine.

  91. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Zyklon B is a pesticide, ain’t it, useful on fleas, lice, ticks, and other pests?

    • Replies: @Ace
  92. Ace says:

    So by your analysis, Merkel us a National Socialist.

  93. Ace says:
    @Sam J.

    We need to add another rule to Godwin’s Rule. Anyone who interjects 9-11 Truth nonsense into a discussion has his internet privileges limited for six months. Only access permitted: twerking videos.

  94. I’m a cynical man. I suspect that much of the official opposition to Putin is due precisely to the fact that he has participated in the restoration of Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Russia. If he was only a closet Marxist the West and the mass media would get along fine with him.

  95. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    And yet, here we are, almost a year later and Merkel has lost her shine while Putin seems to be going from strength to strength.

  96. The American media hates Putin because Crimeans voted to join Russia and Putin agreed. This is called by American politicians and presstitutes an “invasion of Ukraine” where somehow our never ending meddling in the Middle East is rarely called such. The American media hates Putin because after the current government in Ukraine was installed by an American backed coup Eastern Ukrainians objected and decided to secede from the country, and Putin provided them with humanitarian aid. The American media hates Putin because he is more interested in defeating ISIS than Assad. And worst of all, Putin is an actual Christian who objects to rabid feminists desecrating churches which is considered by the American press to be a fundamental human right.

  97. James says:

    Merkel had no “axe to grind with Putin”?!!

    The de-facto leader of the EU who would at the very least know of the funding of the pro-EU rebels who illegally overthrew the Ukraine’s anti-EU President wouldn’t have a problem when Putin helped to fight back? The leader of the organisation who is doing everything it can not just to stop the UK from leaving but even more than that behaving in such a way as to bully any other country that thinks of leaving would be quite happy that the Ukraine’s pro-EU imposed government was being opposed.

    It’s not Boyd Cathey who is the idiot or the paid operative.

  98. Ace says:

    That “no helicopters” point tells the whole story. Amazing you were able to figure that out.

  99. Z-man says:

    LOL and quite true, LOL!!

  100. Ronnie says:

    I was one of the first academics to visit Russia during the 80ies and before the mass immigration of Russian Jews to the USA and Israel. Because I was one of the few foreigners to visit Russia for extended periods during this time, I was befriended by many Jews for which I was immensely grateful, and I heard a lot of opinions from Jews. They basically criticized the Russian system fearlessly to me time and time again. The basic theme that I heard over and over again was that Russians were anti-Semitic and that this Jew would be Head of his Institute or in a much higher position but for that fact. Based on my wide experience I rather doubted this speculation in many cases. In other words, the Jews that I met loathed the Party apparatus and the selection process in the work place that they thought was prejudiced against them. My overall opinion was that Jews were vastly overrepresented in the higher end of the scientific community and were some of the most creative and productive scientists that I met. They were almost all very ambitious and very frustrated in Russia where they felt victimized because they were Jews. In some cases I detected that Party politics had indeed denied them higher positions in their field. However, on average I felt that Jewish scientists were respected and valued and they definitely had total access to me, which they exercised. They were the first to leave for the USA and Israel when the gates opened. But they retained their loathing for the Russian system and people like Putin. They may have warm feelings about certain aspects of Russian culture and nostalgia for Russian history etc but they are filled with negative feelings in my opinion. I feel that Jews in general are overrepresented in criticism of Russian, Putin and malign theories about Russian interference in USA politics and they do have a lot of knowledge about Russia compared to the rest of us. In general I have detected that despite Netanyahu’s regular visits to Moscow the Jewish community is overwhelmingly anti-Russia and anti-Putin in most respects. To be blunt I would say that Jews in the long term have not been a dominating influence in Russian life, as compared to the USA, and their intelligentsia finally left for the USA and Israel when it was in its flower. These Jews definitely felt that they were not fully appreciated in Russia and badly treated. If this opportunity had not arisen, the picture of Jewish ascendance in Russia today might be radically different.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Boyd D. Cathey Comments via RSS
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism