While I agree with the basic premise and argument of this piece, I’m wearying of the damnable understatement that Putin is “no angel.” He is worse than that--he’s a murderer, an autocrat, and a gangster.  That’s not the reason he’s so hated by the neocons, but there is something shameful in asserting that he has committed “no crime.”

Again, I want to emphasize that I am not an advocate of confrontation with Russia, and I think that in spite of her basically godless and monstrous regime, she ought to be an ally of the United States on the basis of sheer common interest.  But this, “Oh, that Putin, he’s not such a bad fellow” stuff is more than a little sickening no matter whose ox you think you’re goring by saying it.

In an age when being a traitor to your own people seems to be the first prerequisite for leadership of most Western countries, Putin appears to break the mould. Nevertheless, he has been associated (rightly or wrongly) with some rather unpleasant events during his rise to power: collaboration with criminal gangs during his time as mayor of St Petersberg; possible involvement in false-flag bombing of Moscow apartment blocks (to implicate Chechens) during his time as head of the FSB; the destruction of Grosny, with huge loss of life, during his time as Prime Minister. I realise that he may have reluctantly carried out some of these atrocities in order to prove his faithfulness to his Oligarch masters and thereby convince them that he was the man for the job of president. I applaud Putin’s crushing of the Oligarchs and his freeing of Russia from Jewish tentacles, and I applaud his apparent thwarting of Israel’s plan to use Georgian bases for an attack on Iran. However, I would be reluctant to make him man of any year; he plays by very different rules to those I have been taught.

hmmmm.... kristol, kraut, ledeen, satter, cohen.... hmmmm.... *what do they all have in common?*… and perle, abrams, midge and norman?.... hmmmm....

WHY CONTINUE THE FACADE?!.... CALL A SPADE A SPADE!… WHY SELF-CENSOR?! - neocon = J-E-W!

This is fantastic. So we have American Jews supporting Muslim terrorists on the other side of the world- the same separatists who sided with the Nazis during WWII. Just goes to show how far they are willing to go to eliminate Putin- a man loved by his people. And all this just because he jailed a handful of Jewish crooks? Goes to show just how committed neo-cons are to supporting democracy and to fighting corruption, doesn’t it?

How can the self-described, modestly named Sage call Russia godless when the article noted in some detail how much the present regime is devoted to the propagation of Christianity?

He’s certainly an autocrat, and he kills people.  He doesn’t seem much of a gangster by Russian standards, though.

I wouldn’t want him running Britain - he’s too brutal, and no respecter of the rule of law.  For Russians he seems like a godsend, though.  After the South Ossetia war, if I were Russian I’d be ecstatic.

I’ll hold my breath until the axis allows such views to be published
anywhere in their media empire. Neocon America has made itself so hated in Europe that
German, Russian, and French nationalists are burying their historic differences to root
for Obama as an alternative to our global democratic imperialists. Unfortunately O may
give them more of the same Wilsonian garbage.

Putin is not propagating Christianity so much as he’s finding fellow KGB Agent Drozdov (a.k.a. Patriarch Alexei) newly useful.

If Putin is really a “patriot of the West,” why is he in Venezuelan waters playing war games with Hugo Chavez? Is Chavez also a patriot of the West?

This lionizing of Putin among the anti-neo-cons is truly astonishing.

Not so much “lionizing” as hat-tipping. Pat Buchanan has done the same.

“If Putin is really a “patriot of the West,” why is he in Venezuelan waters playing war games with Hugo Chavez?”

It’s called ‘Let’s make a deal’. You stay out of my backyard and I’ll stay out of yours.

He is in Venezuelan waters protecting Russian interests by putting the U.S. on notice that we cannot simply surround him with missiles on his border and expect no retaliation.  His foreign policy moves at least make sense in the context of Russian self interest.

Meanwhile Ahmadinejad is playing high stakes poker with us and waiting to see if we call his bluff.  Will we pull the trigger and put the final nail in our coffin or will we try and survive as a republic and give up the empire?

What is wrong with being an autocrat if it serves the national interest and defends one’s people against manipulation by selfish money interests and ideologies ?  If being an autocrat is the only way to do that, then thank God for autocracy.

“How can the self-described, modestly named Sage call Russia godless when the article noted in some detail how much the present regime is devoted to the propagation of Christianity?”

You are aware, aren’t you, that Sage is actually a name, and not an altogether obscure one?

As for his propogation of Christianity, all I can say is, that if hatred for neocons will drive a person to this level of credulity concerning their enemy’s enemy, then it’s time to take a break from the fever swamps.

And Charles, the point is that defending national interest is NOT achievable only through autocracy, and apologia for Putin is so irresponsible precely because it leads others to the conclusion that being “not much of a gangster by Russia’s standards,” while also being a nationalist, is quite enough to earn the admiration of sensible men.

“He is worse than that--he’s a murderer, an autocrat, and a gangster.”

Moral relativists can’t be choosers, you know.

Mea culpa Sage, so many people use pseudonyms. Putin is guilty of loving his country as, I presume, do you. If he feels uncomfortable being surrounded by those who wish him no good at all, feeling threatened by the resurgence of the old enemy, then his behaviour is rather restrained. America is proud of being America and Russia is proud of her past. The Prime Minister has no reason whatever to kowtow to anyone and he will not. As a good Christian you, I am sure, will understand that throwing stones is not always effective.

Ascetic, I think my original comment, and the succeeding ones, make it plain that I don’t disagree with any of those sentiments.  Being proud of one’s country and working to secure its interests was once thought to be a minimal qualification for state leadership, not an indication of greatness, and all of those things could be said to apply to innumerable monsters and bad actors on the world stage.  Putin is a beast, although as I said earlier, I think it’s in our best interest to cooperate with him.  This doesn’t mean he ought to be admired, simply for doing what sensible statesmen always have done.

My point, as ever, is that remarks like “He is guilty of loving his country” are way, way off the mark, and are positively immoral, given that he’s guilty of much, much more than that obviously unimpeachable sentiment.  Yes, he loves his country in a way that most modern leaders don’t even pretend to, but that’s not all he’s guilty of, and implying otherwise or suggesting that it gives him a pass drags authentic conservatism down.  Paleocons need to remember Chesterton’s words, that one of the things that seperates Christian orthodoxy from secular love of authority is that it never claimed that a king could not be damned.

Sage, am I to understand that you do not subscribe to ‘my country right or wrong’?

An ex-secret policeman who hankers after the old Soviet Union and wants to rehabilitate Stalin? My enthusiasm for Czar Putin is restrained.

Canning the K boys was a smart move by Time. Neither of them would know the truth if it slapped them in the face because they are blinded by their own hubris and pride.

Putin? The Russians seem to like the stability and increasing prospertity under his control. They also seem to like their new president.  A few weeks ago, Dmitri Medvedev laid out Russia’s stance in relation to the US and the world in general.

”New Russian world order: the five principles”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7591610.stm

Western Europe doesn’t seem overly upset over the events in Georgia.  Considering the rising tide of both anti-semitism and anti-islamic sentiments in Europe; the pushing of “missle defense” by our current administration; and the connections of investment and resources between eastern and western Europe; I am not surprised that the French and Germans are seeking closer ties to Russia. Most Western Europeans do not feel threatened by Russia. Furthermore, many consider Georgia to part of Russia’s “sphere of influence.”

I’m not so sure that NATO as it exists today and the “missile defense” idea is going to be helpful to Europe, or to the US. The former satellite countries are fearful of Russia and they are supportive of the NATO unbrella. However, those hosting radar or ABM defenses would be the first targets by Iran (or Russia). The BBC has opened a “have your say” venue for this discusson.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=5250&edition=2&ttl=20080924200241

How did the oligarchs in the 1990s achieve their ownership of Russia’s prime assets? After all, coming out of the Soviet system, these guys had no capital. However, with vast capital from “abroad,” they were able to bribe and coerce their way to gobbling up the valuable companies.

They were bankrolled by Globalists with the intention of looting the vast Russian resources. Putin chased them out or imprisoned them, and took back the assets for the Russian state. That is the backdrop for why the neocons hate him so.

As much a thug, gangster, or murderer as this guy supposedly is, and I only have hearsay to go on, he no doubt pales in comparison to the body count that Bill and Hillary have racked up.

Just to cross the t’s and dot the i’s. Five and possibly six of the six oligarchs who looted Russia are Jews.

I once met a Jewish Russian immigrant who told me that when he served in Russia he was told to drastically write-down the value of the Soviet industries that were on the selling block. That was years before I realized who he was being told to write-down for.

Steve Sailer is a valued resource on these shenanigans including the role of the former president of Harvard and his academic protege.

Cheers!

Sounds like Russia is fighting the culture war against TV pretty well: D’oh! Simpsons and friends face Russia ban

Pornographic, extremist and immoral—that’s how Russian prosecutors are describing popular US cartoons like The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park.

Correct link to the Yahoo News story.

Fa
Ti
Ma

Know Putin by the friends he makes: Chavez, Morales, and Ortega, the biggest losers in the western hemisphere.

Great piece! Vladimir Putin also deserves credit for seeing the wisdom in helping Iran to build the much-needed nuclear power plants, but keeping Russian control of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Putin has a better ability to ascertain Russia’s best interests, than G W Bush has, as to the best interests of the US.  I agree with Anatol Lieven of the London Times, who says it is insane for the West to get into a big fight with Russia over South Ossetia, when Pakistan is getting close to the point of explosion. Michael Ledeen should be remembered for his role in the “Niger yellowcake uranium” scam, that was part of the phoney basis for the invasion of Iraq.

Excellent article.  Putin may be ruthless, but he is a capable leader and his longsighted nationalism poignantly contrasts our side of the world where suicidal policies are par for the course.  I don’t condone his evil practices, but he has qualities we haven’t seen in our leaders for decades.

Lucius,
You calling Chavez, Ortega, and Morales “Losers” is really rich. Do you read the newspapers or watch TV?  The USA is collapsing into poverty, corruption, and irrelevance. You struggle to find 5,000 troops to send to Afghanistan. Your money is Mickey Mouse Monopoly money. And you have the balls to call Chavez a loser? If he decided to sell his oil to China instead of your country, you would be walking to work in your Chinese-made shoes - if you even had a job. Putin at least is doing what is best for his country, unlike your politicians who do what is best for themselves.

It is indeed rich to read those that are foaming at the mouth screaming about “autocrats, gangsters, and murderers”.  Trully rich. 

Yes, what we have in the west is the genuine thing to be lived up to, isn’t it?  I mean, a lifelong public servent like Bill Clinton suddenly becoming a multi-millionaire upon retirement does not represent gangsterism in the least.  And when Bubba’s and Dubya’s teams anihilate hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by way of aerial bombing and sanctions, that’s not murder at all - is it? - considering the parties on the receiving end did nothing to the US. 

Trully rich.

Everyone screaming about “autocracy” here should do something immediately: post here any and all policy divergences that are meaningful in the least between our two parties in this wonderful democratic system that we have. 

And then, write one statement on what the possibilities are of any “third” party being able to crack the system. 

Autocracy and democracy, my ass.

Rick Johnson,
You said, “[The Jewish oligarchs] were bankrolled by Globalists with the intention of looting the vast Russian resources. Putin chased them out or imprisoned them, and took back the assets for the Russian state. That is the backdrop for why the neocons hate him so.”

Exactly. All of them now enjoy living off their billions in Israel, except for Khodorkovsky who is in jail. Their financing came from the Bank of New York. This is from Wikipedia: “In late 2005, the Bank of New York settled with federal regulators for US$38 million regarding a money laundering scandal that began in 1996. The illegal operation involved two Russian emigres—one who was a Vice President of the bank—moving over US$7 billion via hundreds of wires, and ended in the prosecution of at least nine individuals.”

And in that investigation, the buying of Russia’s mineral resources for pennies on the dollar was engineered by a highly placed US politician known to the oligarchs as “The Exterminator.” He had $10 million deposited in a Swiss bank account for his assistance to them. The investigation never enquired too closely into who “Exterminator” was, but it might be worthwhile to note that before he entered politics, Republican Senator Tom deLay was a bug and rodent exterminator.

And people wonder why Putin does not like the USA?

Eagle,

You said: “I mean, a lifelong public servent like Bill Clinton suddenly becoming a multi-millionaire upon retirement does not represent gangsterism in the least.”

Clinton and his madam since lieving the White House have gained entry to The Club. He and Hillary have spent many weekends since 2000 as the houseguest of Poppy Bush - the man who once alled Clinton a “bozo” and was told in return “It’s the economy, stupid.” Funny how bitter enemies become such good buddies, isn’t it? Here is a nice story for you:

The richest gold mining company in the world today is Barrick Gold of Canada. All through the Reagan and Poppy Bush Administrations, they tried to buy a gold claim in Nevada from the US Interior Department, without success. Once he lost the election in 1992, Poppy Bush forced through the sale of the claim to Barrick, which was thebn a small company. The value at today’s prices of that gold deposit? $30 billion. How much Barrick paid the US Treasury for it? $10 thousand. Yes, ten grand. $2.50 an acre, a price which was last set in 1870. And, six months after leaving office, guess which former President was hired as a Special Consultant by Barrick Gold? Yes, none other than Poppy Bush. His stipend for his consultations? Nobody knows - he is a private citizen and his tax returns are closed to us.

Bruce Babbitt’s (Clinton’s Interior Secretary’s) comment on that deal, which was signed and closed - nothing could be done to reverse it: “The biggest gold heist since Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.”

And you wonder why they are so anxious to get elected to “public service?”

Sigh. 

Some of the commentators here do not seem to understand a simple truth.  Just because the United States has imperfect leaders DOES NOT mean that Putin should not be criticized.  We can criticize Putin AND our administration BOTH.  This article is about Putin.  So here is the place to criticize or to defend Putin ON HIS OWN RECORD.  The thing that really is *quite rich* is how some folks are trying to change the subject.  The subject is Putin.

Neocons have their own reasons for not liking Putin.  Simply because they give Putin a minus does not mean that he necessarily deserves a pass, let alone a plus mark.  This sort of Manichaean thinking—“all enemies of neoconservatives are automatically good/every neoconservative stance is automatically bad”—is a very bad methodology.

Poppy Bush and Bill Clinton, as I understand it, spend time crying on each others’ shoulders over what a muckup Wiener has turned out to be.  Eisenhower retired from the Army with a general’s pension and some boxes full of Zane Grey novels.  I recall that, upon his death, the little farm at Gettysburg was assessed at $5 mil, far below its value, to give Mamie a break.  Putin is a rugged nationalist and rather heavy-handed.  Could anyone with a dainty touch hope to make Russia work at all?  Life continues....

Indeed, Tobias. Some are so preoccupied with the neo-cons and the crimes of the Bush administration that they’d rather have Chavez in charge!

As for our public servants enriching themselves, their indulgence is nothing compared to Putin’s. He runs Russia like a personal business, and has made himself one of the richest men in the world.

God bless Vladimir Putin. The one who has balls and big one I think. As simple as that. The weilth of Holy Russian to the Russians first.
It’s any thing wrong with that?

Sigh again.

Marius, please do not “play dumb.” Who here is objecting to Russians looking out for Russia first?  The objections have been to autocracy, murder, and brutality.  The objection is to the lauding of a former member of the Soviet secret police who has attempted to tap into nostalgia for the Stalinist era.  And please address these claims instead of dodging them by saying, “Look at Bush, Israel, the neocons, etc.” Putin is a “big boy,” his record is subject to scrutiny. 

I would add that I object to Russia’s assistance to the Abkhazes, who ethnically cleansed Georgians, who had previously been the largest ethnic group in Abkhazia.

Lucius,
You claim: “He runs Russia like a personal business, and has made himself one of the richest men in the world. “

I think I am pretty aware of current affairs and what is being said both in the USA and elsewhere, but this is a claim I have never heard from anyone but you. Ferdinand Marcos, yes. Mobutu Sese Seko, yes. Sani Abacha, yes. George H.W Bush, yes. Prescott Bush, in his dealings with Nazi Germany, yes. Bill Clinton, yes. About the only former American Presidents who never seem to have walked away with suitcases of cash were Truman, Eisenhower, and Carter. Some of the others, like Reagan, were rich before they took office.

But in the case of Putin, I see nothing in his lifestyle and have heard no claims from anyone that he is enriching himself at the expense of the Russian State. Do you have any supporting references for that claim?

Thank you,
Gulliver.

Dear Tobias,
I’m talking here about Russia’s weilth. This is the heart of the West problem with the Russian leadership, especially Putin. Remember, the West was very friendly with Boris Yelstin.Why? Not because he was a great democrat! It was because Yelstin was good in licking the ass, and more, of the West leaders, Bill Clinton first, and businessman. Russians hated him like Gorbatchev. Nevertheless, we loved Gorbatchev too. Do you the percentage he got in the presidential election? Les that 1%. Russians Hate him too. That all changed with Putin, so we dont like him now. Now for the inquiry for Putin and his crimes it is up to Russians again, but apperently they love him!!! I dont know why, have not any clue. Maybe they are sick people.

Wow. More proof that some people hate nocons so much, that they will shill for communists.
Paleo-nonconservativism at its most unhinged.

Tobias,
Your claims are valid. However, please consider two points: First, in the 1990’s, the oligarchs who “bought” Russia’s mineral resources at auction for pennies on the dollar did so by conducting a campaign of terrer - assassinations, bombings, and murder - against any journalist who exposed what was going on, and against any legal authority that tried to prevent their campaign of violence, subversion of state institutions, and public terror. How do you expect Putin to combat such criminal activity, which subverted the institutions of justice - any judge finding against the criminals would end up dead - except by similar extra-judicial methods? If criminals do not agree to live by the rule of law, then the state will have to do likewise. We see this same situation developing down in Mexico today. That will be resolved in the same way Putin did - by a suspension of law.

Second, there is an extreme double standard here. The American illegal war on Iraq and the consequent deaths of somewhere in the region of a million innocent Iraqis - a country which had no WMD, never attacked the USA, and had not the slightest intention or wish to attack the USA (Saddam was above all a survivor, and would never have been so foolish, but as it turns out it availed him little in the end,) - this war does not give the USA any moral standing to criticise anything that has been done by Russia. In fact, we are praising Saakashvili for bombarding and killing Ossetians, people he claims as his own citizens, while we hanged Saddam for doing the same to the Kurds, also his own citizens, with poison gas the USA supplied to him. The two situations are so parallel as to be sppoky. Moreover, the USA has failed to criticise the most extreme violence against civilians by the Israelis. Using Apache helicopters and Hellfire missiles to target crowds of civilians and an old man in a wheelchair, using flechette shells (tank shells which spray steel needles - a weapon banned by Geneva conventions for use against civilians) to attack groups of civilians just going about their business on their farms, using cluster bombs to saturate Southern Lebanon so as to (they hoped) make the area uninhabitable - all these actions by Israel have brought not the slightest peep of reprimand from the USA. Why should it - we supply those weapons to Israel, in full knowledge that they will be used against civilians.

I apologize for the long post, but examples must be given to back up claims. In light of this, how DARE you criticize the actions of Vladimir Putin? By comparison with Bush, Olmert, and Sharon, Putin is a Mother Teresa in moral terms. Please remember, when you point one finger at Mr. Putin, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

Best wishes,
Gulliver

And something else to help understand the anvy: Rassia’s soil is apperently a geological scandal, like the one of Zaĩre, the ex Gongo. A fabulous weilth is still sleapping there and as we know the Russia’s land is vaste, huge. Now we can see more clear the game.

Marius—I think there may be some confusion as to who who is accusing whom of what.  You were commenting on why neocons don’t like Putin.  I, victim of pride, thought you were rhetorically asking the critics of Putin who have written in this blog’s writeback what their problem is.  My problem is not that Russia’s wealth is staying in Russia.  I have a host of other problems with Putin, but not that.  So sorry I accused you of “playing dumb” when (I guess) you weren’t referring to the commenters here.  But Putin is guilty of much more than merely keeping Russia’s wealth in Russia.

Gulliver:  “Please remember, when you point one finger at Mr. Putin, there are three fingers pointing back at you.”

How DARE *I*?  How am *I* at all guilty of what Sharon, Bush, etc., have done?  How are the three fingers pointing *at me*?  Have I ever been a KGB agent?  Or a Communist Party functionary?  Seems I’m in a pretty good position to criticize Putin.  Why do you make assumptions?  If I point out a fault that Putin has committed or is likely to have committed—like poisoning those critics of his with radioactive substances—and Putin is guilty, then he is guilty whether or not *I* or anyone else in the West is guilty of anything.  Why must every single conversation on this blog come back to Western errors? This is like one of those multiculturalist blogs, where you can’t criticize a Third World country without 100 people saying that the West is assuredly worse. It is one thing to criticize neoconservatism, it is another thing to object to valid criticisms of Putin.  When you point the finger back at Bush, etc., three of your fingers are pointing back at you and the KGB boss you’re defending.

Putin is a Russian nationalist.  And Saakashvili is a Georgian nationalist.  You criticize Saakashvili for bombing his fellow citizens.  Don’t the Russians claim that Chechens are Russian citizens?  So I guess Putin et al. should be condemned for Chechnya.  Oh, wait, you’ll say that the Chechens were separatists and terrorists.  Well, the Ossetians were separatists, who wished to detach a province that has belonged to Georgia since long before any Ossetians got there, and hand it over to Russia, a much bigger country that insists on treating Georgia—a sovereign republic—as part of “Russia’s sphere of interest.” I.e. the Georgians are not permitted to trade with whom they wish, form alliances with whom they wish, build pipelines on their soil, etc.  Saakashvili may have been foolish to invade South Ossetia, but his is clearly the (probably doomed) patriotic Georgian position.  That *does not* justify neoconservative interventionism, but if I were a Georgian I’d certainly want to join the West and leave Soviet-era nostalgics on their own side of the Caucasus.

Marius:  “Maybe they are sick people.”

Russia certainly has a culture that is sick almost unto death.  You think the U.S. is so awful, read the statistics for social disintegration and demographic collapse in Russia.  *Some* of Putin’s policies are opposed to these trends, but so far they haven’t borne much fruit.

More proof that some people hate neocons so much, that they will shill for communists.

Putin is not governing like a communist.

From worldwide-tax.com:

# The tax system in Russia underwent a comprehensive reform in the year 2001. This reform is designed, in principle, to ease the tax burden on individuals and companies and to simplify the classes of payments for national insurance.
# Russia has a uniform rate of tax on the income of individuals. As of 2008 tax in Russia is payable at the rate of 13% for an individual on most income. (non-residents 30%). Russian residents pay 9% on dividend income. (Deduction at source).
Non-residents pay 15% on dividend income.
# Exemptions are granted to certain income earners.
# The standard rate of Russia corporate tax in 2008 is 24%

My final comment --

Back in the day, red-blooded Americans used to respond to leftist attacks on America by saying, “You don’t like it, go back to Russia.” I respond to these crazy Putinist “paleoconservative” attacks in the same way:  “You are so hostile to America, please move to Russia.”

I would add that I object to Russia’s assistance to the Abkhazes, who ethnically cleansed Georgians, who had previously been the largest ethnic group in Abkhazia.

I object far more to the ethnic cleansing of whites in the US and Europe by ‘free’ and ‘democratic’ Western governments through mass immigration. Then there are the ‘hate’ laws in many US-allied NATO countries designed to prevent resistance to the colonisation of Europe. But you’re all worried about Putin and Chavez! Talk about misplaced priorities.

Putin’s no angel.  He’s no Stalin, either. He’s killed far fewer innocent people than Bush & Blair did, for what that’s worth.

He has enacted policies that are in Russia’s interests and that have greatly increased the chances of Russia’s survival - which did not seem likely in the ‘90s.  He stands in the line of great Tsars, and more Catherine the Great than Ivan the Terrible.

However, aside all that, the most important thing about Russia under Putin is that there is no reason why the West should have it as an enemy.  Russia no longer seeks global domination as it did in USSR days.  We should be in loose defensive alliance with the Orthodox world, and with India, against the genuine aggressors who really are seeking global domination.  One day that might mean China.  Currently it means Islam.

However, I would be reluctant to make him man of any year; he plays by very different rules to those I have been taught.

Posted by ian on Sep 24, 2008.

While I agree with the basic premise and argument of this piece, I’m wearying of the damnable understatement that Putin is “no angel.” He is worse than that--he’s a murderer, an autocrat, and a gangster.

Posted by Sage on Sep 24, 2008.

I offer this, exhibits A and B, to the court. 

paleocon = faileocon

Faileocons lack the manly will to power to even tie their own shoe laces.  Pathetic.

Putin is a real White man, he gets things done, he doesn’t sit on the sidelines and wring his hands.

We are faced with the genetic and cultural annihilation of the White race.  This is war.

Time to be a man and get in the game.

Wow. More proof that some people hate nocons so much, that they will shill for communists.
Paleo-nonconservativism at its most unhinged.

Posted by RonL on Sep 24, 2008.

That’s right Ron.  Some Whites are not prepared to go quietly toward the grave just because that would be “good for the Jews.”

Putin let the filth, thieving “oligarchs” off easy.  They should have been liquidated.

I agree that Putin is doing whatever is necessary for Russian advancement. I also think that this is an admirable path albeit a superficial one. Have we forgotten that insular trade policies such as towering tariff structures designed to protect their own are what started WWII. One of THE reasons anyway.

(to be read while listening to the Final Chorus
of Prokofiev’s “Aleander Nevsky")
It is not Czar Putin but Czar Vladimir pronounced
vla DEE meer. Slava Bozhoo!

Regarding Putin’s wealth:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/21/russia.topstories3

Matra wrote:  “But you’re all worried about Putin and Chavez! Talk about misplaced priorities.”

Once *again,* the topic is *Putin.*

“Putin is not governing like a communist.”

Putin is not peddling communism; however, he is governing using the same methods the communists used.

Exemplum gratis:
Ruslan Yamadayev, a former State Duma deputy and a member of a Chechen clan that challenged President Ramzan Kadyrov’s authority, was gunned down in central Moscow late Wednesday.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/371176.htm

I tend to think that Russia has missed a tremendous opportunity here.  The world will never advance the way it could be possible while witch doctors of any kind (christian,muslim,whatever) are allowed to interfere with the mind of a child before the age of about 21. Allowing them in schools is a major catastrophe.

What a crying shame.

Tobias,

Who gave you editorial authority to limit this dialogue to the parameters you believe encompass it? 

If posters are going to be snooty and take a “we’re superior” tone in criticizing Russians in general and Putin specifically, then I say it is quite appropriate to hold a mirror up to our very own country and to our leaders in order to add some perspective to the dialogue. 

As for:

“You are so hostile to America, please move to Russia.”

All I can say is “grow up”.

Lucius,

And when Iraqi proxy forces hanged Hussein without a real trial, how was Bush governing? 

Or when, on his orders, the US tried to kill Milosevic in his home with a missile, how was Clinton governing? 

Let me remind you that in both cases the neither the leader in question or their governments aggressed or threatened to aggress the US.

My point to both Tobias and Lucius is that I (and seemingly others here) are not defending all of Putin’s behavior per se, but giving him some credit where credit is due AND putting his failings into perspective.  That perspective , objectively applied, should make us realize that our own western leaders are more autocratic, violent, and even communist in the manner in which they apply their rule.

@ Eagle
Tobias was not exercising editorial authority, he was pointing out a basic principle of logic.

Well, Lucius,

why not explain that logic more plainly for the slow-witted such as myself who explained to him why a wider discussion was fair game, unless of course this is your ruse not to answer the very plain questions I put forth to you in light of your comments/accusations.

Dear Tobias,
I don’t hate America and I don’t hate Russia either. I don’t have any reason for that.I don’t hate the communists and I don’t hate the capitalists either. Both have some inerrant good and both have some inerrant evil. We are not able to conceive the perfection in any case. Some time though it is fair to give what belongs to Cesar. Russians like Putin for some reason and Americans hate Busch for some reason too. Now I want to address again the question of Putin in this sense;why,we,in the West, don’t like him? To my opinion, because he is reading in the mind of the western leader and say it out straight. He knows for example why we surrounding, encircling Russia from all sides with NATO members, military bases, radar and missiles. He knows that this it is not to bread democracy in Ukraine for example or even inside Russia its self. He knows that this is to neutralize the Russian arms first and then dictate to her the terms and size of the piece of the cake of the Russian wealth that the West want to take and Putin says is clear and loud. So the west doesn’t like him and that is a gift for the Russian people.Thanks

Captainchaos
It is all very well to want to be a man of action, but actions without thought are frequently counter-productive, and actions without a moral compass even more so.

“It is all very well to want to be a man of action, but actions without thought are frequently counter-productive, and actions without a moral compass even more so.” - ian

Yes, but people need to be shown the example of a “man of action.” We need to explicitly discuss how each issue relates to our struggle to resist our genetic and cultural annihilation and what we plan to DO about it. 

To me that is the only sane path to walk.  If I can accomplish that, to get the fence-sitters talking and doing, I feel I have succeeded.

@ Tobias,

Your pedestrian quip is a let down. If I am supposed to be working, I would like to make my downtime more edifying so as to work in more furious bursts. Anyway, we may not need to move to Mother Russian as her customs are moving here. To wit, I have just modified my training regimine with kettlebells and Spetsnaz calisthenics.

The 1992 Presidential Debates with Ross Perot were not dull.  His warnings have now come true.  Replace John McCain with Ron Paul.  Add Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney.  Barack Obama must earn his victory, not win by default.

Washington University ‘81

How many of you Putin admirers acually really knows what kind of Putin’s Russia really is? How many of you speaks and/or reads Russian, how many of you watches Russian TV? It’s absurdly childish to admire this KGBnik simply because the neocons don’t like him. But nothing new, if you think about it - once upon a time you admired Lenin and Stalin too. Nothing new under the sun.

James
Thanks for your comment. What you say may well be true. It is very difficult to learn the truth of these matters through the western media. Nevertheless, what was done to Grosny looked barbaric.