Just when you thought columns comparing Putin to Hitler were over with, George Will possibly writes the piece to top them all:
The Islamic State is a nasty problem that can be remedied if its neighbors, assisted by the United States, decide to do so. Vladimir Putin’s fascist revival is a crisis that tests the West’s capacity to decide…
Putin’s essence is anger. It is a smoldering amalgam of resentment (of Russia’s diminishment because of the Soviet Union’s collapse), revanchist ambitions (regarding formerly Soviet territories and spheres of influence), cultural loathing (for the pluralism of open societies) and ethnic chauvinism that presages “ethnic cleansing” of non-Russians from portions of Putin’s expanding Russia.
This is more than merely the fascist mind; its ethnic-cum-racial component makes it Hitlerian. Hence Putin is “unpredictable” only to those unfamiliar with the 1930s. Regarding the roles of resentment and vengeance, remember where Hitler insisted that France formally capitulate in 1940 — in the railroad carriage, near the town of Compiegne, where Germany signed the 1918 armistice.
This is not the first handwringing to come from a conservative voice that Russia is turning into an evil, Fascist empire under the deceitful eye of Vladimir Putin. Most conservatives seem to embrace this idea that Russia is becoming the US’s enemy once more, and they now go back to propagandizing against a White foe rather than one of a darker shade. It should come as no surprise he uses ISIS to preface his argument and wants America to focus on the Russian Bear instead of the Islamic militants.
Conservatives haven’t accepted the Cold War world is long gone, and this new threat from Russia represents a hope that they can revitalize their ideology with the help of ole Vladdy and return back to the good ole days. Fat chance, but delusion is the driver of the conservative.
In the mind of the American conservative, Putin’s regime now represents some sinister type of authoritarian, racial nationalist state fit to be the perfect enemy for a Call of Duty game.
Meanwhile, our friends over at Counter-Currents have produced several pieces that should be forwarded over to Will and his friends to reassure them that Putin is no evil fascist. But they go much farther than that and venture into Russophobia. Instead of conservatives who fret that Russia is turning into the Third Reich, Counter-Currents portrays Russia as a liberal, Jewish-controlled, anti-White, faux Traditionalist regime. Also, White Russians aren’t really White either apparently.
Here’s Counter-Currents’ latest article about the Russian evil:
Putin’s form of conservative, race-blind, Jew-friendly civic nationalism is actually the worst case scenario for whites, since it places an essentially anti-white system on firmer political and economic foundations, which will allow its anti-white, ethnocidal trends to proceed more efficiently until Russia’s white population is biologically beyond recall. But Putin doesn’t think this way, because he is not a “fascist,” i.e., a racial nationalist — not even an “implicit” one.
Thus when Putin claims that he is battling against fascism and anti-Semitism in Ukraine, he really means it. And, as a “fascist” and anti-Semite, Strom needs to take him at his word. Vladimir Putin is not our “secret friend.”
And the same even applies for Alexander Dugin. You know the apparent neo-Nazi mystic who’s hell bent on destroying freedom according to conservatives? Yeah, he’s also now an anti-White, phony anti-liberal, faux traditionalist:
It is noteworthy that Dugin, too, avoids any critique of egalitarianism. To the extent that opposition to egalitarianism is the essence of the true right, this means downplaying the real differences between left and right by focusing entirely on attacking “liberalism.” The concept of “liberalism” — intentionally left ambiguous, referring at times to capitalist economic individualism, at times to the moral individualism of gay rights activists and secularists — is meant to function as a central pole of opposition that will artificially unify into a single, cohesive front groups that are otherwise profoundly heterogeneous.
It is crucial to understand that Dugin, who calls for a “crusade against the West” is not opposed to liberalism because it is leading to the destruction of the white race. On the contrary, he frequently identifies “the West” with the white race (since he does not view Russians as white, as will be explained later). His primary stated goal is to destroy liberalism, even if that means destroying the white race (“European humanity”) along with it.
The latest series of hit pieces on Dugin are a depressing turnaround from when only a year ago CC would both publish interviews with the man and articles praising his work. Since he supports the Putin regime and invading Ukraine, now nothing he writes can be of value and we have to condemn his work.
Lucian Tudor’s fantastic “The Real Dugin” should answer your questions about the controversial aspects (to Identitarians, not neocons) about the bearded philosopher and how his ideas are relevant to our cause.
What is most troubling about Counter-Currents and many within the Identitarian Right’s turn on Russia is how it is now almost echoing the concerns of the American Right and the Left. We are endlessly inundated with stories crying about how bad Russia is and how we need to take a stronger stand against them. This fits perfectly in-line with current US foreign policy that sees Russia as a threat to their global hegemony.
With that in mind, I do think Identitarians need to have a realistic view of Russia. Putin is not one of us and Russia does pursue some questionable policies. They are not the great ethnostate of the East and we should not slavishly worship Russian power. I personally believe that many of the articles that Counter-Currents published earlier this year on Russia were very insightful and provided some much needed cold water for some fantasies about Russia. But now many in our sphere have gone from mere Putin skepticism to full-blown Russophobia.
What we need instead of Russophobia or Russophilia is a balanced view of the motherland. We all need to agree that Putin is not a closet ethnonationalist. We also need to agree that Russia as a global power is usually a force for good (they single-handedly prevented the bombing of the Assad regime and would’ve have stopped an intervention into Libya if Putin had been president). They have some good policies and some bad policies, but deducing that they are an anti-White state is a a bridge way too far. On the other hand, the United States is an actual anti-White state and its global power is a force for evil.
Ultimately, we should also not blacklist the entire work of Dugin for taking a strong stand in a conflict that involves his country. While we may disagree with Dugin, he, unlike Putin, is (philosophically) one of us. He is a Traditionalist, he writes incredible critiques of liberal society, and he is sympathetic to ethno-nationalism. If you want to bash him for having weird views on race, you might as well throw out Spengler, Yockey, and a whole host of other conservative revolutionaries who had similar views.
The Ukrainian conflict has created needless divisions within our own ranks—and it is not even an event we can have any power to sway or connects with us in anyway. It is not our fight to fight. It bears saying that the war between Ukraine and Russia is a depressing reminder of how hard it is to unite White people together, which is why we should remain neutral in regards to it for neither side represents our interest. The Ukrainian Civil War should not be fought between Western Identitarians who need to unite to preserve our own existence.
In the meantime, we should accept a realistic view of Russia and not succumb to the siren call (courtesy of the United States State Department) of Russophobia.