Waking from the dream


For those of us stuck in the deficit-ridden, austerity burdened, degeneracy celebrating, multicultural, globalist, liberal Nanny police state nightmare of the West, any strong leadership seems appealing. But the opposite of something bad is not always something good.

We desperately year for someone like Ron Paul — who spoke out against the “soft” imperialism of the west and stood up for gun rights — to be a leader and a focal point for the movement against the disease that infects our civilization. When we see leaders in other countries taking a stand, particularly European-descended ones who are unapologetic and strong-natured, we take notice of them. Such is what happened with Vladimir Putin, who has attracted a flotilla of admirers in the West, mostly conservatives, who look toward his strong leadership and perceived lack of politically-correct tendencies.

Until a few nights ago, I like many others in the West who long for a leader of our people with more bravery than salesmanship, was caught under his spell. To see a leader crack down on radical Islam, speak openly about traditional morals, endorse the church, oppose immigration as a solution to population swings, and yet act with force and diplomatic cunning while flagrantly flaunting the decadent West’s liberalism and globalism, cheers us and makes us hope that he is the one to lead us out of this morass. Could he be the one who will create a European resurgence?

Alexander Dugin, a close ideologue of Putin, believes so. He says that Russia wants to “liberate” us Americans from our political class, that we should have a second American revolution, that Russia supports traditionalism in our country and a revolution to take it back… Wait, that sounds sounds oddly familiar — Where have I heard that before? Hmm…

Oh, right. Dugin was a communist. In some ways, he still is a communist. He once created and led the “National Bolshevik Party” which combines the idealism and the shortcomings of Nazism and Communism. Russian “conservatives” hail the Soviet Union. This is a huge problem, because we need to see that Russian ideology is not based on a set of timeless moral principles. Instead, it is based on the idea empowering Russia and Russians above all others. This is not the Traditionalist revolution you seek. It’s swapping one superpower for another, and all the surface “conservative” elements are Potemkin artifacts designed to use you as foot soldiers to bring Russian imperialism into being.

Dugin is simply making a play in a haphazard attempt to stir things up in a less effective but combative role to counter what our CIA does in places like Ukraine and Syria. Dugin wants a revolution here for one reason: it destabilizes Russia’s major competition and Putin’s main rival: the United States of America. Two events convinced me that this is true and thus, that Putin’s “Traditionalism” is merely an act and Dugin its actor.

The first incident happened on that most postmodern of activities, social media. Olena Semenyaka, a writer I respect highly who is now the press secretary of Ukraine’s nationalist party “Right Sector,” was blocked on Facebook by Dugin. He had said that the Ukrainian nationalists were “neo-nazis” as if he were writing American propaganda against European right-wing parties. Olena confronted Dugin with the truth, and he silenced her because she proved to be too tough for him to deal with intellectually and honestly.

Earlier Olena had quietly informed me of Putin’s real nature as well, hinting to me that Putin is no friend of real nationalism and certainly not to the heritage of the West. I did not want to believe her. But the incident in which Dugin blocked Olena for dissenting from the Sovietist party line was the first blow to my idealized view of the Russians.

The second event was the reaction by a Russian contact to an article reciting a rumor that Putin wants to “re-take” Finland. I had stated that if in the unlikely event Russia had decided to invade Finland, I would stand with the United States in support of a massive intervention on behalf of Finland. Hearing this, the Russian contact unfriended me and said rather bluntly “it’s nice to see your true colors.” What was most stunning was that we had a cordial and friendly relationship over the past year. We often laughed and joked, and basically agreed on most issues, but one single remark about a vague rumor spurred her to discard me and silence my dissent.

Up until those two events, I could make excuses about the nature of Putin and Russia. Even though the invasion of Finland is an unlikely event, the reaction of these Russian “right wingers” shows they are not willing to have an open dialogue about the motives and consequences of Russia possibly going too far, and this above everything else shows me these people cannot be trusted entirely. They wish to use us as assets, allies in their fight against our power, and will discard us if we become a nuisance. The Russians do not seem to tolerate dissent – and for those of us in the west, dissent is a part of our culture.

Putin is not a friend to the west. Revolution here (America) won’t lead to an equally strong power balance with an equal ideology, it would lead to Russia taking advantage of the situation and making strategic moves against us. The Russians ensure we know little about them, but we know from experience that they are cunning, ruthless and that their nationalism is primarily concerned with one thing: Russian power. We of the west are concerned for our own kind mutually and must defend our brothers in neighboring lands. We are nationalists, not imperialists. We do not view any of the nationalists of the west as inherently better than one another, but the Russians do see themselves as superior to us. The mythology of “The Third Rome” drives their core ideology and informs them that they are destined to Rule all of Europe and Asia. We as nationalists oppose this, oppose both empires of the east and west, and wish to reclaim our own cultures and keep them strong.

I am not a russophobe, but I am not a “putriot” either. I admire many things about Putin, Russia, and even the Soviet Union (GASP! a conservative said that? oh no!) but I recognize that they are geopolitical rivals, and until the policies of the west change, and the policies of Russia change, and we come to a mutual understanding and diplomacy and stop maneuvering against each other, then we are enemies. We have abandoned the chauvinism that used to plague our nationalist movements, and now we fight alongside each other for our civilization and our culture. We want our mutual culture to survive, which is the crux of our nationalism and the source of its opposition to imperialism.

Putin, a former KGB agent who did well under the Soviets, may be using right wing beliefs in the same way Soviets used left wing beliefs: as an ideological justification for power, influence and control. I want to like Putin because I like many of his policies, but these are surface changes, not deep alteration to Russian society to move it in a conservative direction. With that in mind, it would be gullible for me to take him at face value. His “conservatism” is too easily faked and too powerful as a manipulator, much as Soviet ideological benevolence attracted many during the Cold War.

Many of us in the West have not capitulated to our liberal and degenerate leaders. Particularly in the military our people have a warrior ethos. In Greece, France, Ukraine, Finland, Sweden, UK, and more, our nationalist brothers are rising. We will fight if we have to. We will defend our fellow Western nations. We will not let you simply take lands as you choose. We will respond with overwhelming power and force. Russia and Putin should take note that the west may be in a slump, but it is not dead.

We will not capitulate just because we wish we had strong leaders like Putin appears to be. The West is our home, comprised of our allies, our lands and our brothers. From Ukrainian patriots to Greek patriots, from the National Front to the UKIP, we are waking from our slumber and taking back our lands. And we will fight to the death to defend them. Who dares wins.


  1. soren says:

    “”””Olena Semenyaka, a writer I respect highly who is now the press secretary of Ukraine’s nationalist party “Right Sector,” was blocked on Facebook by Dugin. He had said that the Ukrainian nationalists were “neo-nazis” as if he were writing American propaganda against European right-wing parties.””””

    There’s a picture of her giving the seig heil gesture besides a swastika flag… the neo-nazi label fits… (not that there’s anything wrong with that)

    I used to like Olena, but I pretty much find her to be an airhead. Pravy Sector just put out a statement supporting NATO/US/UK intervention in Ukraine…

    From Ukrainian patriots to Greek patriots, from the National Front to the UKIP, we are waking from our slumber and taking back our lands. And we will fight to the death to defend them. Who dares wins.

    The Golden Dawn supports Putin, UKIP’s Farage has supported Putin twice in debate and won both, Le Pen supports Putin… all the serious right wingers are with Putin. Period…

    Legitimate nationalism will be far easier to achieve with a Resurgent Russia counterbalancing the America World Order.

    1. James Harmon says:

      Farage stated he admired what Putin did with Syria, and then condemned his rule. The golden dawn may support Putin, but I have never head him support them (which is my point here that western nationalists are being utilized as assets. RT certainly refers to them pejoratively and Putin has never, and I doubt would ever, openly support Golden Dawn). As for Le pen? I haven’t heard any pro-Putin statements aside from praising his domestic policy ideas relating to culture, which as I had stated hold an immense attraction because they are good ideas and policies. That isn’t the point whatsoever here.

      The function of a resurgent Russia to counterbalance the US and EU does play a significant role, but that doesn’t mean Russia is an ally to all the right wingers who look up to him. He supports politicians that are beneficial to him regardless of ideology. He is a known supporter of trade with communist and socialist countries such as Venezuela, North Korea and China.

      Just Like Stalin supported capitalists feeding him revenue streams, but “socialism in one country” Putin supports “Nationalism in one country”, if it can even be called that – Russia has the second highest immigration rate in the world after the United states, has strict hate speech and hate crime laws, and has open multi-cultural, government sponsored programs such as Nashi that openly attack nationalists (and nazis to) in the streets. He cracked down on right wing vigilantism and gives power to Caucasians, who in many parts of Russia, lord over ethnic Russians.

      Putin is a statist. His gas and oil shipments have Europe paralyzed so they can’t respond back to his actions. He supports whatever government body is best for him to do so at any given time. Just because a handful of policies and some great rhetoric are espoused, does not mean he’s on “our side”. He’s on his own side. Even if he is a genuine nationalist, he is only so for Russia, and will happily throw any other nation under the wheels of Russia’s bus. You’re deluding yourself here.

      I admire his methods and rule. I like his image. but it is in the sense of the Nietzschean idea of a great and worthy enemy.

    2. 1349 says:

      “Pravy Sector just put out a statement supporting NATO/US/UK intervention in Ukraine…”

      A more disturbing thing is that Dmytro Jarosh’s election program has very little to do with conservatism. I’d say, nothing to do… It is rather “power to the people!”
      Although this might be a constrained move, of course.

      1. James Harmon says:

        Personally, I don’t know how I feel about the Right Sector sometimes, either, but knowing people in the movement I do support a lot of what they are doing. They aren’t necessarily conservatives, more nationalist right wing populists, but I don’t think that’s entirely bad. Their brand of right wing politics only bothers me when they start to get very anti-russian.

  2. LoreTek says:

    It is plain to see that all the events over the last year and a half, spanning from Syria into Ukraine, and likely even earlier, are not random events. They are carefully planned coups, resistances, and interventions that are meant to entice war, and they hope to all high money that we are too dumb to consider it.

    Simply, war is the harbinger of progress. While I’m not convinced that the NED didn’t fund the coup in Ukraine; what I do believe is that the leaders of this world want war. They could want it to cull the population, bring about a new technology hike, simply for the vast reserves of natural gas that Eastern Europe sits on, or perhaps to apply as a catalyst for a deeper Globalist agenda, but they want it.

    If Russia is in “ongoing violation of Ukraine’s integrity” what is NATO doing there, what are EU diplomats doing there, what are soon to be American troops apart of NATO war games doing there? What are war games doing there!? From 9/11 to the Boston Bombings, anywhere that attracts FEMA or that sees NATO war games, is NOT a place to be hanging around. Why, if we are so afraid of escalating things, are we imposing sanctions on Russia, even going as far as to spitefully kick them out of the only thing that was meant to look past geopolitical lines in the name of good and true cooperation, space?

    Since when did “speak softly, and carry a big stick” mean downgrading your military, militarizing your police, and throwing sanctions at anything that doesn’t fit your ideals or agenda? The way I see it, you don’t poke a sleeping bear with a stick, especially when its biggest ally supports the economy that you bought the stick with.

    The answer seems clear to me, we want to instigate war. It is the same geopolitical chess board we saw in WWII, with Ukraine being the new Poland and everything shifted, centrally, to the east. All that needs to happen is some arbitrary hat to drop, it doesn’t even really matter what. While I, like you said, have found myself wondering why the West looks more Communists than the actual Big Red, I for one do not want to give the leaders what they want, I will not support a war with Russia over Finland.

    Why? It’s simple really, more so than the winner of a war not being asked to tell the truth, the start of a war is almost as equally, if not more, shrouded in fog. Sure it’s all well and great to support a fellow Western country if invaded or threatened to be invaded, but with the current state of affairs it won’t stop there.

    Once this next real war starts, it will spread like wildfire. The leaders will take whatever start they can get, and all of a sudden it won’t be our war anymore. It won’t be a war to conserve what is left of the Western way of life. It will be the final war for Globalist domination. Our future will be tied up in taking over every single last country for the West.

    Sadly however, it will be the transmuted West, that we fight a grass roots battle against now, that will rein.

    As soon as this next war starts, regardless of how noble that start is, the West we fight for and believe in with all our hearts, will be gone forever.

    Not because it lost to Russia and China, but because it won.

    1. crow says:

      I wouldn’t go assuming that the West would win such a scenario.
      It hasn’t been very good at winning wars, lately.
      It will become ever less good, the further its individuals retreat into their own sense of self-importance, rather than behaving as a team.
      Still, better to die championing equality, women’s rights, gay rights, and hamburgers, than to live in bigotry, eh?

      1. LoreTek says:

        Only for the sake of argument do I assume it.

        Right! Much better. Either way we win? Haha

  3. Colleen says:

    This article was meaty and enjoyable. Thank you.

    I am rather well disposed toward Putin. Agreed, he is not someone for Western countries to ally with, but he does provide a decent (if imperfect) model of nationalist leadership combined with conservative values. If he is an enemy, he’s at least an enemy we can respect, unlike the pusillanimous Western leaders.

    The problem with the more idealistic brands of American conservatism is that the Ron Pauls of the world–the good guys–are never going to be movers and shakers, politically. They’re just not ruthless enough to claw their way to the top.

    If we want a political system based on something besides the seduction and manipulation of the masses, do we have any other realistic option besides a strongman (and/or an oligarchy) who is willing to make tough, potentially unpopular decisions and enact them through force? Do we have any other option besides someone like Putin?

    1. crow says:

      That was a meaty and enjoyable comment.
      The answer is “No!”
      A dictator is called-for, and nothing but. But a benign one. Someone who does not dictate for his own increased power and standing, but for those he represents. A hard-ass with reverence for the whatever-Almighty-is.
      Now, where does one discover such an animal?
      A sort-of cross between Daniel Day-Lewis, Genghis Khan, and the Dali Lama…

      1. James Harmon says:


    2. James Harmon says:

      Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it. I like Putin as well, but not for who I want him to be, but for who he is. He isn’t our savior or ally and we can’t expect him to help right wingers in the west. He has done some things we can model policies on and acted in a manner we could learn from, but he also is doing some things that we know to be distrustful and questionable. We simply don’t know how pure he is.

  4. 1349 says:

    Russian “conservatives” hail the Soviet Union. This is a huge problem, because we need to see that Russian ideology is not based on a set of timeless moral principles. Instead, it is based on the idea empowering Russia and Russians above all others.

    Wait, wait.
    Soviet ideology was clearly not about “Russians being above all others”.
    And today’s Russian ideology is rather isolationist (and thus unrealistic) than predatory. “We are unique; we have our own way; we can live on our own; everyone around is an enemy.”

    …which is the crux of our nationalism and the source of its opposition to imperialism.

    This is almost bolshevist rhetoric.
    Is there anything wrong with running an empire?

    The problem is that Russia is not an empire but rather a post-1789 nation-state with the same old features –
    * a tendency to the unification of culture and language;
    * national identity that refers to citizenship rather than ethnicity (do you understand the difference between “Russians” (“rossijanie”) and Russians proper (“russkije”)?);
    * irredentism, chauvinism;
    * a necessity to legitimize political decisions among the emancipated masses;
    * politics that is fuelled by ideology, not tradition; even Russian Orthodoxy has been subordinate to state interests, and thus, essentially, part of the political ideology, since the 15th or 16th century.

    One of the favourite arguments of their “imperial” ideologists is… “But the people support us! Everyone agrees with us, and not with you, you nazi!” =)))

    Hearing this, the Russian contact unfriended me and said rather bluntly “it’s nice to see your true colors.”

    Eastern Slavs are easily brainwashed (and Putin’s brainwashing machine is the most powerful here and is working all the time).
    They can be very intelligent by birth and be good scientists, engineers, doctors etc. but when it comes to political/historical/religious/civilizational questions, they easily believe absolutely blunt propaganda and can’t notice even the most obvious manipulation. I live around here, and when the Ukrainian unrest/Crimean conflict started, i came close to the realization that i absolutely do not belong among these people, for it seems like i can’t respect even the most intelligent ones around…

    One of the peculiarities of Russia is that liberal-invented brainwashing techniques are implemented on a population that is mostly conservative (at least, “socially conservative” and, allegedly, religious), as long as Russia had no period of “rationalization” (= Enlightenment). And the brainwashing appeals to and amplifies these conservative features, and there you have anti-progressivist and anti-gay bigots. =)

    1. James Harmon says:

      Communism was not about Russians first, but soviet nationalism, the byproduct of Russians dominating the system, led things to become that way eventually. Russians, no matter what ideology they hold, do things a certain way, this was my point.

      by “imperialism” yes I meant irredentism and chauvinism, two things modern nationalists simply need to steer clear from. This kind of ideology will simply tear us apart once again for a third great war. Nationalists should worry more about preserving their current borders and supporting their people in ethnic strongholds in other lands instead reclaiming lost land.

      In a sense nationalism is, compared to old ideology, leftist, because it opposes the idea of an empire, and sides with “the people” and it’s culture over “the empire” and that hierarchy. But today’s nationalism becomes right wing in relation to today’s leftism, as well. Left and right show they have less meaning than we think – they aren’t eternal necessarily.

  5. Greg Johnson says:

    Well-reasoned and well-written. Thank you.

    1. James Harmon says:

      Thank you for the feedback, Greg.

      1. crow says:

        That wasn’t feedback. That was a compliment :)

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.650 seconds