Category Archives: Russia

Fascinating Interview of Aleksandr Dugin by Vladimir Pozner

I’m not entirely sure what to make of controversial Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. What I am pretty sure of is that this interview refutes the claim that Russia is substantively less free than America.

Can anybody imagine Steve Sailer getting interviewed by Katie Couric?  Donald Livingston by Dan Rather?

National Saints

At Mark Hackard’s excellent inventory of new and classic translations Soul of the East, we encounter Russian science fiction writer Natalya Irtenina’s comments regarding Russian saints and their role in Russian identity:

Russian saints have been wholly undeservedly forgotten and ousted beyond the frontiers of modern non-Church culture. They’ve become but another “tradition out of deep antiquity.” And this is not only a misunderstanding; in the final analysis, it is a crime against Russian history and culture, from which the heart has practically been excised [...]

The moral and spiritual authority of the saints was very high: they could give orders to rulers, and by the force of their words and personality subdue rebellious tempers. And, of course, it is impossible to compare anything with the spiritual and moral influence of the saints on the Russian people as a whole.

National saints are, of course, found in places other than Russia.

For that matter even 21st-Century multicultural America has its own “saints,” though they represent a quite different faith.

Buchanan on Putin

Buchanan nails it as usual.

But if Putin is not a Russian imperialist out to re-establish Russian rule over non-Russian peoples, who and what is he?

In the estimation of this writer, Vladimir Putin is a blood-and-soil, altar-and-throne ethnonationalist who sees himself as Protector of Russia and looks on Russians abroad … as people whose security is his legitimate concern.

Imagine that. A leader who actually looks out for the best interests of his people rather than trying to make the world safe for globalist banksters and other assorted fat cats.


Crimea Votes to Secede and Join Russia … America and Europe Call it Illegal

The Crimean vote is illegal … but the coup against the duly elected* President in Kiev was legal?

Fireworks exploded and Russian flags fluttered above jubilant crowds Sunday after residents in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The United States and Europe condemned the ballot as illegal and destabilizing and were expected to slap sanctions on Russia for it.

*As duly elected as any person in that region can be given rampant corruption and outside meddling.

Hmmm … maybe I was on  to something when I pointed out neocon hypocrisy on this issue here.

“Snowden’s Red Dawn”

I couldn’t improve upon the title of Jeff Stein’s piece in Newsweek so just rolling with it.  Anyway, some neocon’s of dubious loyalties signed a letter that is hard to find on the Internet so I cannot find (yet) all the signers, but they all agree that Snowden must have had some help from Russia, and he is thus a traitor, so I thought to do a better roll call then offered by Stein as to the characters involved.

Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House intelligence committee

De facto supporter of Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria.

Before he wasn’t.

Congressman Michael McCaul

Rich man who thinks Syria is a threat to the United States and de facto supports the Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria.

Before he wasn’t.

James Woolsey, former CIA Director under Clinton

Suggested Saddam was behind 9/11  .  And told a Chronicles writer (Andrei Navrozov) that Russia, in league with Iraq intelligence, were behind 9/11, which Andrei agrees with–oh, those Truther paleocons.

General William Boykin

Came up with the idea to use CS gas on the Branch Davidians as a member of Delta Force.  Oversaw the Abu Ghraib homo-torture program.

A leader at Family Research Council.

Michael B. Mukasey

Big promoter of the spy, Jonathan Pollard.

John Bolton

Bonkers Bolton, pro-gay marriage/women on the frontlines sort who wants to attack Iran.

Diane Feinstein

Do I really need to write anything?

Mr Prime Minister, There Is Only One Important Question Facing Us

I rediscovered the following in this site’s “media library”. From the book The Scientist as Rebel by Freeman J. Dyson (published 2008):

The last stop on our tour was the city museum of Vladimir. Here we found the densest concentration of schoolchildren. The museum is in a tower over one of the ancient gates of the city. Its emphasis is historical rather than artistic. The main exhibit is an enormous diorama of the city as it was at the moment of its destruction in 1238, with every detail faithfully modeled in wood and clay. Across the plains come riding endless lines of Mongol horsemen slashing arms, legs, and heads off defenseless Russians whom they meet outside the city walls. The armed defenders of the city are on top of the walls, but the flaming arrows of the Mongols have set fire to the buildings behind them. Already a party of horsemen has broken into the city through a side gate and is beginning a general slaughter of the inhabitants. Blood is running in the streets and flames are rising from the churches. On the wall above this scene of horror there is a large notice for schoolchildren and other visitors to read. It says: “The heroic people of Vladimir chose to die rather than submit to the invader. By their self-sacrifice they saved Western Europe from suffering the same fate, and saved European civilization from extinction.”

The diorama of Vladimir gives visible form to the dreams and fears which have molded the Russian people’s perception of themselves and their place in history. Central to their dreams is the Mongol horde slicing through their country, swift and implacable.

It took the Russians 150 years to learn to fight them on equal terms, and three hundred years to defeat them decisively. The horde in the folk memory of Russia means an alien presence moving through the homeland, ravaging and consuming the substance of the people, subverting the loyalty of their leaders with blackmail and bribes. This is the image of Asia which three centuries of suffering implanted in the Russian mind. It is easy for us in the strategically inviolate West to dismiss Russian fears of China as “paranoid.” If we had lived for three centuries at the mercy of the alien horsemen, we would be paranoid too.

British prime minsters, soon after they come into office, customarily visit Washington and Moscow to get acquainted with American and Russian leaders. When Prime Minister James Callahan made his state visit to Moscow he had two amicable meetings with Chairman Leonid Brezhnev. At the end of the second day he remarked that he was happy to discover that there were no urgent problems threatening to bring the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union into conflict. Brezhnev then replied with some emphatic words in Russian. Callahan’s interpreter hesitated, and instead of translating Brezhnev’s remark asked him to repeat it. Brezhnev repeated it and the interpreter translated: “Mr Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive.” Callahan was so taken aback that he did not venture either to agree or to disagree with this sentiment. He made his exit without further comment. What he had heard was a distant echo of the Mongol hoofbeat still reverberating in Russian memory.

It took them three hundred years to drive out the Mongols but only four years to drive out the Germans.

During the intervening centuries the Russians, while still thinking of themselves as victims, had become in fact a nation of warriors. In order to survive in a territory perennially exposed to invasion, they maintained great armies and gave serious study to the art of war. They imposed upon themselves a regime of rigid political unity and military discipline. They gave high honor and prestige to their soldiers, and devoted a large fraction of their resources to the production of weapons. Within a few years after 1941, the Russians who survived the German invasion had organized themselves into the most formidable army on earth. The more they think of themselves as victims, the more formidable they become.

Pages 98-101.

James Callaghan was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1976 to 1979.
Continue reading

US Senator Misquotes GK Chesterton, Makes Fool of Self to Putin

In a recent reply to Putin’s hard-hitting New York Times article Jim DeMint, a former US Senator, writes:

As a British admirer of America, G.K. Chesterton, once put it: “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed.” We are, in other words, not a nation based on ethnicity, but on beliefs, and not coincidentally, that is why we attract people of all ethnicities and they become proud Americans.

DeMint is citing Chesterton’s “What is America?” However, Chesterton was writing critically, not in support, of America’s ideological nationalism. Chesterton continues in the same essay:

Now in America this is no idle theory. It may have been theoretical, though it was thoroughly sincere, when that great Virginian gentleman declared it in surroundings that still had something of the character of an English countryside. It is not merely theoretical now. There is nothing to prevent America being literally invaded by Turks, as she is invaded by Jews or Bulgars. In the most exquisitely inconsequent of the Bab Ballads, we are told concerning Pasha Bailey Ben:

One morning knocked at half-past eight A tall Red Indian at his gate. In Turkey, as you’r’ p’raps aware, Red Indians are extremely rare.

But the converse need by no means be true. There is nothing in the nature of things to prevent an emigration of Turks increasing and multiplying on the plains where the Red Indians wandered; there is nothing to necessitate the Turks being extremely rare. The Red Indians, alas, are likely to be rarer. And as I much prefer Red Indians to Turks, I speak without prejudice; but the point here is that America, partly by original theory and partly by historical accident, does lie open to racial admixtures which most countries would think incongruous or comic. That is why it is only fair to read any American definitions or rules in a certain light, and relatively to a rather unique position. It is not fair to compare the position of those who may meet Turks in the back street with that of those who have never met Turks except in the Bab Ballads. It is not fair simply to compare America with England in its regulations about the Turk. In short, it is not fair to do what almost every Englishman probably does; to look at the American international examination paper, and laugh and be satisfied with saying, “We don’t have any of that nonsense in England.”

We do not have any of that nonsense in England because we have never attempted to have any of that philosophy in England. And, above all, because we have the enormous advantage of feeling it natural to be national, because there is nothing else to be. England in these days is not well governed; England is not well educated; England suffers from wealth and poverty that are not well distributed. But England is English–esto perpetua. England is English as France is French or Ireland is Irish; the great mass of men taking certain national traditions for granted. Now this gives us a totally different and a very much easier task. We have not got an inquisition, because we have not got a creed; but it is arguable that we do not need a creed, because we have got a character. In any of the old nations the national unity is preserved by the national type. Because we have a type we do not need to have a test.

Chesterton even includes in the closing paragraph:

I am very far from intending to imply that … there is no danger of tyranny becoming the temptation of America.

So, in arguing in favour of ideological nationalism, DeMint quotes a critic arguing the opposite. It’s at least heartening that Heritage might have a real conservative in the woodwork, since DeMint is provided a quote by Chesterton instead of Horowitz. If readers aren’t aware, Chesterton is one of ours. DeMint is President of The Heritage Foundation, the same that asked Jason Richwine to leave for having written this brilliant study.

Hopefully DeMint learns from this embarrassment and takes the path of Harvard political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington, in asking, “Who are we?

Putin and Lyudmila Announce Divorce After 30 Years of Marriage

Russian President Vladimir Putin has become something of a hero to conservative Christians of Europe and her colonies (such as the USA), so I’m saddened to read of his suffering a divorce. Russia Today quotes him with:

President Putin elaborated on his decision: “All my activities, all my work is being done in the public sphere, with absolute publicity. Someone would like it, someone would not, but some people are just absolutely incompatible with this,” he said, adding that his wife had been “standing the watch” for nearly nine years.

It sounds like Putin has become a workaholic, devoting his life to Russia, and Lyudmila didn’t enjoy the resulting lifestyle, as well as publicity. The marriage was sacrificed as a result.

I fear workaholism is a serious affliction of the US and Europe, most lacking the worthwhile cause Putin serves. Unlike many though, Putin did produce two daughters, who are now in their mid-20s. And 30 years of marriage is something.

Laurel Loflund put it well at Faith and Heritage:

Only you must think past today, think past the days when your present or future children prepare to leave the nest and begin their own families. What is the best use of your time, your money, when looked at through the lens of family survival and growth?

Too many Americans are workaholics, devoting themselves overmuch to causes or to monetary pursuits. A proper balance is needed. :)


I have long said that Russia should just let Chechnya go. They clearly don’t think of themselves as Russians. Is it really worth all the trouble to keep them in? They let Georgia go, for example, when the USSR collapsed. Why not let Chechnya go? I have read that it has to do with their relative statuses before the breakup. Georgia already enjoyed a higher level of autonomy than Chechnya does. So they’re keeping Chechnya on a technicality?

Russia aided secessionist South Ossetia when they thought doing so would tweak the Georgians.  But they won’t allow Chechnya their independence. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Of course, America’s official position on the issue should be neutrality. I’m just sayin’ for me personally… I believe if I were a Russian I would be thinking, “Good riddance! Don’t let the door hit you on the backside on the way out.”

The super alpha Vladimir Putin

Regarding our recent discussions on Putin, Roissy writes:

It’s not often we get a photo with two super alphas — representing different male factions — squaring off in friendly admiration rather than combative distrust. But here we have it with Putin and the leader of a Russian motorcycle gang whose name is too long for me to bother spelling out, swapping war stories.

Strictly speaking, and in broad terms, Putin is undoubtedly the bigger alpha here. Putin ostensibly runs a country; Alexander the Biker runs a bike gang.

But alpha is often context dependent. Should he so choose, Putin has the fame and power and mystique to clean up with the ladies pretty much wherever he goes, but there are probably some biker bars where Alex is king of the hill and the girls will encircle him as aggressively or moreso than they will Putin. In the cramped quarters of a bar or street gathering, away from the media and cameras, these two men will be judged on more immediate male attractiveness criteria than their ability to pull off power moves in the Politburo.

With that in mind, this moment in time caught in a photo offers a rare glimpse of two fairly equal alphas in a pose-off. Putin, the shorter one, has a clear physical disadvantage in size that deflates some of his alpha allure. But Putin’s solid alpha body language — his ramrod posture, devious grin and straightforward gaze that avoids a betafying crane of the neck upward at the taller Alex — neutralizes his lesser stature.



Chechen Warlord Admits Moscow Airport Bomb

I wonder if the neocons over at ACPC aren’t involved. They’re pro-Islam in Chechnya and Kosovo (which has been a disaster) but anti-Islam in the Middle East…

RT, “Chechen Terrorist Claims Responsibility for Domodedovo Airport Bombing“:

Russia’s most wanted terrorist, Doku Umarov, has claimed he was the mastermind behind January’s bombing at Domodedovo Airport, which took the lives of 36 people and injured more than 180.

He sees all Western countries as enemies of Muslims and has been proven to have links to Al-Qaeda.

Continue reading

Why is the white, Christian party attacking a white Christian nation?

From the election returns a few weeks ago it is obvious from the the exit polling to the demographic breakdowns to the actual results themselves that the GOP has been established as the white, Christian party whether they like it or not.  They can display all the tokens they want but we all know who is on the dollar bill.

So given this fact, why on earth do many Republican politicians still; regard Russia as the same enemy they were back in the Cold War?  Why do they stare into the faces of the white Russians, whose golden domes of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior glistens in the Moscow sun, and only see the enemy.

Regardless of the merits of the START treaty, the opposition to it in the context of Russian relations is just baffling. Neocon opposition I can understand but not the opposition of everyone else on the Right.

Here’s a nation which can be a valuable ally, which suffers the same malignancy of Islamic terrorism and has sen seen many dead from it and is a nation which has similar historical traits as the U.S. in some areas.

Daniel Larison at Eunomia debunks a lot of arguments against a simple nuclear proliferation treaty and Pat Buchanan wonders why the GOP is risking a new cold war? But cynically I wonder if the Russians were Dispensationalists  instead of Orthodox Christians, would their be such push back from the GOP.  Such “other” Christians, particularly in Middle East, were offered no protection by the Bush Administration either in Iraq or in Israel (certainly not getting anything from the Obama Administration) despite the troubles U.S. foreign pyolic caused them. Orthodox Christians in Serbia and Macedonia were abandoned in the face of Albanian irredentism.  Now Republicans in the Senate wish to do the same to another group of Orthodox Christians. I ‘d like to know the reasons why.

Putin in His Own Words: On Blowback, Secession, and More

The following quotes are taken from First Person: An Astonishingly Frank Self-Portrait which was published in 2000.


Q: It seems as though Russia criticized NATO because we weren’t allowed into the Yugoslavia resolution process as full-fledged partners. But what if we had been allowed in?

Putin: Well, that’s just the point. If we had been allowed in, that decision never would have been made. We never would have agreed to that type of interference in the internal affairs of another country. That sort of behavior simply cannot be justified, even for so-called humanitarian reasons. I believe that the operation itself was a major mistake in international law.

Q: And the invasion of Hungary by Warsaw Pact troops in 1956, and of Czechoslovakia in 1968? Were they mistakes?

Putin: You forget that we used force in Germany in 1953, too. In my view, these were major mistakes. And the Russophobia that we see in Eastern Europe today is the fruit of those mistakes.

pg. 178
Continue reading

Predictions for Obama’s Foreign Policy

I previously wrote about what I thought Obama’s administration will look like with respect to the social issues, so now I want to discuss what his foreign policy agenda will look like. As I’ve said countless times before on my own blog, I highly doubt that Obama’s foreign policy will differ very much from that of his predecessor. Indeed, a lot of neocons have warmed up to the idea of Obama being in the White House just as they liked the activist foreign policy of Bill Clinton. Neo-Wilsonians of every stripe have no problem with Obama precisely because he believes in an interventionist foreign policy. In fact, as The American Conservative magazine reported earlier this year, Obama may even be more belligerent than President Bush. Continue reading