ArgentinaGuard wrote: Mir wrote: ArgentinaGuard wrote:
Nazi Germany fought against the Jewish scum and against the West (three military fronts at the same time). And it had the same sanctions and criminal boycott that Russia is now having. The same lying press that censors Russia. The Nazis were wrong in the invasion of Russia, but their fundamental ideas were right: vital and historical space for your people (in this case a Russian Slavic space), defense of traditional values (against western degeneration), war against Jewish globalism. It is exactly what Russia does.
The enemy is the same.
Did you know that after the October Revolution in 1917 the west sanctioned the Soviet Union effectively until the end of the Cold War?
Did you know that the American tycoon Henry Ford received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Hitler in 1938 - the highest medal a foreigner could receive from the Nazi party?
Did you know that high ranking Nazi's occupied key positions in the UN and NATO after WWII ended?
Did you know that Henry Ford had factories in the Soviet Union? Did you know that the October Revolution was financed by Wall Street bankers? Did you know that Trosky had refuge in New York?
The West allied itself with the USSR for a reason because the only alternative order to liberalism was nationalism. Russia understood it with the fall of the USSR and the cleansing of communism.
Russia has taken the flag of the Tradition that Greece, Rome, Byzantium and Germany knew how to carry. Russia, after communism and 90 liberalism, is in the right place in history.
That an illiterate Ukrainian dog wears a swastika, says nothing. Members of Wagner also have.
Here the only position that comes close to historical fascism (in favor of Tradition) is Russia. That Putin or many leaders cannot say it is something else.
Dugin did say it and it cost the daughter her life.
I always have to tut and shake my head when I listen to you guys
Bud, there is no 'defense of traditional values'.
For the Americans there is a defense of Pax Americana and for the Russians the attempt to abrogate it - and hoisted upon the Russians I should say, as it was never even Russia's preference to end up in some big confrontation again.
Russia is not fascist, it's not really anything. It's just there and it's a country which cannot accept its foreign policy being dictated to by Washington which is what Biden tried to blackmail Putin into.
As for the traditional values, it's rhetoric. Yes Russia's internal policy is to reject all these weird social experiments as its detrimental to demographics & common sense, and no doubt aversion to this stuff does play a certain role in the foreign policies of many countries; particularly Muslim ones.
But what it ultimately comes down to is the cause that one empire champions, is the cause to which the antithesis will be championed by its rivals. For reasons of self-interest, their rivals will be interested in allying with any internal opposition and rallying others under a common banner too.
While a cause that is championed by said empire is necessary in the first place, as a means of unification and control, in the long-term eroding national/tribal differences and other prior divisions of past statehoods and social orders. This is what most empires get around to sooner or later. Much as the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire (i.e. Europe) back in the 4th century, so do today the modern-day pretender to the Romans declares this ridiculous mix of eco-radicalism, LGBT promotion, critical race theory, critical gender theory and a whole bunch of other post-modernist gobbledygook theorems as their own new religion; complete with all the witch-hunting against heretics to boot.
But that itself does not concern anyone other than the inhabitants of these free speech turning Orwellian societies, and perhaps those nations too dependent on said societies to resist the forced spread of such ideas; Argentina for example or other South American states.
It wouldn't have concerned Russia however or have given any reason for Russia to champion an antithesis had the core geopolitical conflict and attempts at regime-change and expansion from Washington towards Russia not become manifest in the first instance.
And indeed just as Russia is not really a champion of the antithesis, nor is the West really a champion of the cause.
It's ultimately a tool as well as I've noted.
The same Nazism that supposedly stands in opposition to Washington has in fact long been co-opted and bought out by it. Starting from all the Nazi functionaries who kept their jobs in West Germany, to the Reich's scientists getting new employers (the USSR did the same here), to Mussolini's apparatus swiftly pressed into service by the Americans to suppress the burgeoning communist movement and partisans in Italy.. all the way to more modern-day manifestations. Such as the CIA's co-opting of the Banderite ultra-nationalists that was then employed in installing this anti-Russian regime in the Ukraine in 2014, or
the complete support and funding of several of these 'new Europe' NATO members, the regimes of which name streets or build monuments to Nazi collaborators, rewrite history, or throw a fit when Brussels asks them to accept a couple thousand dark-skinned immigrants (a lot of the later ended up stranded in Russia en-route to Europe ultimately, and stayed here, yet no-one here has been kicking up a fuss in this supposedly fascist, national-orientated state).
And of course in your native South America, the US's role throughout the Cold War in propping up regimes dedicated to the emulation of fascist Europe's governments, in service to narrow cliques of ruling landowners - is well-known.
Before you say it though - no, this is not something that has changed now, after communism has ceased to be a threat and the USSR has collapsed.
While you pour scorn on the 'leftist monkeys in Cuba', it is precisely this country which has been the biggest thorn in the side of the Anglo-Saxons, Jews, Anglo-Jews or whoever else you want to name - in your hemisphere. Not any fascist in Argentina or anywhere else, but the commies in Cuba. Being as it was that the manifestation of communism in Cuba came about due to the poverty, foreign meddling and social inequalities, not the mention the concentration in Havana of the same western degeneration; that was all a feature of Batista's regime. Indeed as I recall reading, Castro rallied against the homosexuality and other vices reigning in the capital to gain popular support among the rural population; much as Hitler had once derided the Wiemar republic for during his own climb to power.
On the part of Casto, it made sense to do so even from a communist perspective; because this sort of thing was driven by foreign sex-tourism and rampant wealth inequality.
Let's look further into South America. Hmm now there must be some fascist, or even just right-wing opponents of America here? No, not one? Oh okay they have all been its allies and all still are. Even taking very recent events, such as the coup against Morales (a faux-socialist, but definitely not a fascist), by the same descendants of European landowners and hardcore supporters of free-market capitalism. Conducted with the blessing of the US.
Or Venezuela, there must be some anti-Jewish nationalists in power there for sure? Oh right, socialist types again. That new anti-American in Peru? Na, not a right-winger either. That they're socially conservative, before you mention it, bears no bearing. The same USSR was also socially conservative, more so actually than Russia is today.
So yes it is Cuba that is Russia's ally. Also North Korea. And China. And India. And a bunch of other countries. Because the civilizational choice of the country, so to speak, was already decided upon without realization already back in 1917. Then, as now, the entire West attempted to first throw out the anti-Western regime militarily. Then when that failed, attempted to blockade and isolate the country. Thus the country turned to the rest of the world. There was a brief period starting in 1991 when the West could have in principle, integrated Russia back into their club. But they were too greedy and too condescending, and actually did prefer their loyal anti-Russian satellites in Eastern Europe - for the fact that they were loyal, whereas Russia had its own opinion far too often.
As for these volunteers, Orthodox, fascist or whoever - I have nothing against them. Nor do their beliefs concern me. If for whatever reason they don't like the Bandera regime in the Ukraine or Washington's meddling around the world then those are as good a reason as any to volunteer.
But I do have a low opinion on all these supposed right-wing, or fascist allies of Russia that the Western media keeps witch-hunting for. The only right-wing friends Russia has are Orban and Erdogan; and they are both conditional. Maybe to some extent, the ANC in South Africa as well, in so far as they are African nationalists. But in all cases the cause for co-operation is the same as the cause for co-operation with anyone else - namely the desire of these countries to maintain their independence and distance from Washington. Not so much because of some grand ideological alliance in service of defending traditional values.
It's telling however how Le Pen, this supposed ally of Putin, per the Western press - responded when the war broke out. She was sounding the alarm bells over the West having pushed Russia into the arms of China.
This new Italian leader meanwhile has wasted no time in expressing her support for the Ukraine.
Trump's position is well-known, albeit he is just a populist and with his public profile there are limits to what opinions he can voice.
So far from challenging the current world order, the approach of most of these nationalists and pro-traditional values people differs from the globalist one only in terms of strategy, not in terms of intent - and in fact all align with Kissinger's pre-February one. Namely to ally with Russia against China, and ensure Euro-centric dominance of the world that way.
But Euro-centric dominance of the world won't do for Russia, because such dominance involves exploiting its resources and arming its enemies, as much as those of Africa, or China, or South America's.
I'd rather pick the monkeys in Cuba, thanks. They are rather more straightforward. And you should have a think about what side you're actually on. Because again, if you hope for North America and Europe, in any form, whether liberal, or traditional, to continue their hegemony in the world without space for others - then Russia's is not your side; no matter whatever alignment in values.
And finally about Nazism. I don't know whether you describe yourself as a fascist, or a Nazi, or anything else - it's not my concern. But you do seem to be confused as to what Nazism actually is.
Hitler's innovation was not naming the enemy in the face of the Jews - that's not something that nobody before him had not come up with before.
Nazism was a direct response to communism.
If we understand that communism, or rather socialist revolutions - came about in response to the 19th century industrializing economies ruthlessly exploiting their own working classes; and with the socialists therefore advocating the trans-national unity of working classes across Europe instead.
Then Nazism, was a response to this response, which advocated the preservation and strengthening of those same nation-states, by building unity across all social-economic classes within those states; thus averting revolution. However the means by which this unity was to be achieved was only partially by making capitalism less predatory, the other part of it was of exploiting & robbing other nations and peoples in service of your own. Thus giving benefits to your working class, your middle class, your industrialists; through lebensraum, slave labour, stolen property and whatever else.
Furthermore, Hitler was exposed to all the arguments of the socialists, liberals and others as to the nature of the state, peoples, etc... while in Vienna. And he was intelligent enough to understand these arguments. Where it was claimed that ultimately a state is a means of enrichment by one group over a wider one, and the state gradually forms a people, and that there is nothing physical or material as such about a people - it's just an idealism much as religion or any other belief. And all that sort of dialectic basically.
Hitler was revolted by these arguments, but had to find a counter to them. Which he did, when he came up with all this stuff about blood and race. Which was the material component of nationhood that would explain the purpose of states and differences between them. This is the other pillar of Nazism.
Now I thought about all this before, and in regards to the first point about cross-class unity, believe that it at least has been subsequently adapted to various extents by most countries in the world now over the decades. In that all nations now tend to focus on exploiting their own poor and working classes less, and other nation's working classes, whether as migrant workers or as low-cost labour - more. And that the introduction of universal suffrage, various social benefits have softened the class differences, such as they are still very much there and evident - but that modern governments are obliged to work for the benefits of their entire nation rather than just a clique at the top.
So in that sense every country has become a bit more Nazi-like.
But to actually advocate even a fraction of the same extremes as actual Nazism, the actual physical enslavement and dispossession of other peoples, races, countries - no; that's an abomination.
Last edited by flamming_python on Mon Oct 10, 2022 6:21 am; edited 1 time in total
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Kiko
DMITRY MEDVEDEV @medvedev_telegram answered several of my questions in writing:
