Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Limits of Putinism in Russia and the Need for Themocracy — Duality of Human Nature to be Free and to Serve Something — Why Russia must become a Fascist-Democracy like Israel as National Entity
Vladimir Putin can only do so much and stick around for only so long.
Russian people must mature and learn to become great on their own.
Russia has huge advantages. If Germans or Japanese(or past Anglos) had open access to all that land and resources, Russia would be the #2 or #3 economy in the world in no time.
1. Large enough population with decent enough IQ.
2. Lots of land.
3. Tremendous resources.
4. National pride(something lacking in most white nations).
5. Moral capital(as victors over Nazis, survivors of communism, and resisters of Globo-Homo-mania).
But its economy is on par with that of Spain or Italy and only because of its resources in gas, oil, and minerals. Without those, Russian economy would be that of some third rate Middle Eastern nation. This simply isn't tolerable. Russians need to get their act together, and no leader, however great, is going to do it for them.
So, what do Russians need?
Culture of discipline
Culture of individuality
Culture of accountability
Culture of conscience
Culture of restraint(especially from vodka)
Culture of maturity(such as refraining from wrestling with bears, dancing on tables, and catching fish with penis)
Russia needs a cultural revolution. The Orthodox Church needs to develop an activist wing that trains people like Jesuit cadres to spread and instill values of conscience, diligence, responsibility, and patriotism to ALL Russians.
Russia needs something like Protestant-Work-Ethic cultivation. Its rich elites need to be less lavish and corrupt, and its people need to be more enterprising and less dependent on statism.
A people can be statist and still be productive. Germans were always statist but economically highly productive. The state was always a big feature of France under monarchy and republican rule, but France made great strides just the same. While excessive statism can complicate things with too much red tape & regulations, there have many examples of nations failing despite their lack of 'big government'. The sudden lack of statism surely didn't do wonders for Russia in the 1990s.
In the end, the character of a people will be of paramount importance. Putin has been a good leader(given the alternatives), but he cannot do for Russians what Russians must learn to do for themselves. Granted, a truly great leader can alter the character of his people, but such a man must have vision and iron will. Putin is an able manager and serious statesman, but he's no visionary or prophet. He isn't the Russian Moses... or even a Russian Frederick the Great. A leader who changes the political course of his nation controls the winds. A leader who transforms the national character of his people moves mountains.
In the absence of a Russian Moses, Russians must learn to tell themselves... "WE can do it." For one thing, Russia is one of the few nations that could go it alone if it were forced too. Now, it's good for Russia to trade with the world, but even if Russia were hit by sanctions by the entire world, it could survive because it has enough land and resources. This is not an option for Japan, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and most nations. Germans have human capital but no energy. Saudis have energy but poor human capital and lots of desert.
Russia has people, land, and resources. It could develop great industries.
But there's too much corruption and lack of direction, and so, too many talented Russians prefer to move to other nations, especially in the EU and US. Unless Russian entrepreneurs can be assured of rule of law and a capable work force, they will be reluctant to invest fully in their own nation. For ambitious people, enough is not enough. They want to grow bigger and expand the economy, and this requires a support system of law, work ethic, and reliability. Naturally, we can understand why talented people anywhere would want to move to the US to make a quick buck in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and etc. Even though the US is culturally and morally decrepit, its Anglo-German-Dutch-American legacy of Rule of Law still allows for the kind of property rights and assurances that attract much capital. (But, it's unlikely that American Rule of Law will last very long given the look of California as the future of All America. With each passing year, the Golden State is looking more like a patchwork of Jewish oligarchy, Asian mandarin drones, white freaks & homo degenerates, and Third World serfdom.)
So, in order for Russia to keep its best talent, it has to ensure that the ideas and investments of the most ambitious/ingenious/industrious Russians will be protected and profitable. Also, Russia must appeal to their sense of patriotism, i.e. that, as patriots, they ultimately owe something to the motherland because, all said and done, dollars and rubles don't constitute the highest meaning of life. Furthermore, since smart people like creative stuff, Russians must create a counter-creative culture that defies the globo-homo-dominant fashions & trends of the West that are poisoning the world, not least by fooling so many that they're 'most evolved' for waving the 'gay rainbow' flags.
Putin was a necessary figure, but, especially as there doesn't seem to be a Russian Moses on the horizon, the next stage in Russian development must come from the Russian people themselves. They mustn't look to Putin as mother-bird who forever feeds the chicks in the big nest. Russians must go beyond nest-mentality and build Russia into a real aviary where every Russian can stand alone as well as together. Indeed, the best collective is one of strong individuals. While a collective of weak-willed people might have advantages over disunity among strong-willed-but-atomized individuals, the ideal is a unity of strong-willed individuals. Anglo-America of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century had both strong individualism and powerful sense of racial-national solidarity.
All Russians should tell themselves... "If Germans or Japanese had our land, they'd do great things. Then, why have we Russians have done so much less with all our blessings and advantages? Why isn't Russia a giant Prussia?" Indeed, if tiny Prussia with all its disadvantages could become so powerful, why has Russia always lagged so far behind? Granted, Russia achieved great things under Josef Stalin, but if a people must be whipped like horses and cattle to do great things, they will more cattle than human. The real question is, "Can Russians do great things as FREE people with a sense of agency and accountability?" That is the million ruble question.
Russians should also remind themselves... "A bunch of Anglos arrived on the East Coast of a wilderness called America. After independence, within a century and half, the US became the most powerful and richest nation on Earth. We have even more land and resources, but we achieved so much less. Why?"
By asking such questions, Russians can identify and fix the flaws of Russian character.
For much of Russian history, there was Tsarism and Orthodox culture that crushed individual initiative. Also, Russian elites, so into French and German culture, sought approval from foreign elites while treating their own people like dirt. Many preferred to speak French while regarding their mother tongue as vulgar and barbarian.
Communism was the great hope of uniting Russian elites and Russian masses, but communism crushed individual initiative and enterprise, and so, communism became like modern Tsarism. Furthermore, as non-Russians were dominant in the original Bolshevik Regime, Russian-ness was suppressed for a time in the USSR.
Because Russians lacked individual initiative and enterprising spirit, they were like deer in the headlight when communism ended. Instead of seeing the new order as a great opportunity for fresh possibilities, most Russians were just dazed and confused as they'd grown accustomed to jobs and benefits from the state. In the ensuing chaos, sharp-eyed globalists easily targeted and looted Russia, a nation where most people were clueless as to what to do, especially under the tutelage of the inept Boris Yeltsin. Implosion of statism didn't lead to the emergence of sturdy & sober individualism but bewilderment and nihilism. For many youths, freedom meant revelry and thuggery. For Jews and gangsters, it meant a fire-sale to grab all the good stuff. Among the decent and honorable, everything seemed hopeless as the new elites were utterly crooked while the masses mishandled freedom like children playing with fire. The end of communism was like the second end of serfdom in Russia, but the result was vagrancy than vibrancy. Especially as Jews grabbed so much of Russian resources, it was as if Russians lost not only their private wealth but national property. If Russians after communism had been more like enterprising Chinese(who were governed by strong leaders), they would have jumped at the chance of new opportunities.
Vladimir Putin and his cohorts restored some degree of political, social, and economic order, and that was for the good. But in the end, Putinism can only be a form of transitionalism. It can only provide a temporary respite during which Russians could take hold of their own future. It is a window of opportunity. But how many Russians have the foresight and fortitude to take advantage of the situation that won't last forever? How many want to step forward and take charge, as opposed to all those who are accustomed to having OTHERS fix the problems for them? As of now, most Russians are faced with two possibilities: The Western Model and the Russian Model. Both are bad.
The Western Model is, at least for now, good for innovation, creativity(except in PC-taboo areas), and initiative. Most of the innovations are coming out of the West and Westernized parts of the East. But the Western Model is too divorced from cultural roots, identity, and meaning. It cannot be sustained because Homomania, Afromania, and feminism cannot be the basis of any healthy civilization. Homomania leads to decadence with fecal penetration and tranny-dick-cutting as new rites. Feminism turns women into bitches or sluts who won't have kids.. or become single mothers. Afromania promotes Negro thuggery and megalomania and egotism. And yet, the current Russian model is too lethargic, turgid, and static to encourage and invigorate the creative, enterprising, and innovative spirit that is so crucial to competition in the modern world.
What Russia needs is a kind of Themocracy, or theme-based-democracy. A kind of fascist-democracy... akin to what Israel has. National Zionism is fascism + democracy — of course, its evil twin, Imperialist Zionism that violates the national sovereignty of other nations is hardly praiseworthy. The fascist-democracy of National Zionism must serve the higher themes of Israel: Jewish state, Jewish power, Jewish destiny. Israel is not some abstract propositional nation but a democracy linked with a certain key theme. Iran is like that too. Iran is a democracy with elections, but its theme of Islamism cannot be violated. Now, I'm not so sure about the wisdom of religion serving as the main theme of a democracy. I prefer the thematics of Israel: Blood and Soil. Israel is open to religious Jews, secular Jews, any kind of Jews AS LONG AS they defend Jewish ethnicity and territory. So, the Jewish mind is free to pursue anything as long as it serves the Jewish body on Jewish land.
In contrast, if all Iranians must bow down to Islam, it restrains what can be thought, debated, and explored. (One advantage of Islam is that it has been an effective bulwark against the new religion of homomania, which is a kind of neo-theocracy of idolatry. And to the extent that moral Jews in Israel have been utterly ineffective in preventing decadent Jews from spreading homomania and turning whole parts of Israel into Sodom and Gomorrah does make us wonder about the legitimacy of Israel.)
Anyway, Russia needs more spirit of freedom and enterprise. More individuality. It needs more democracy. More rule of law. However, these freedoms must be anchored to higher(yet also deeper) themes of blood, soil, and history or identity/inheritance, territory, and narrative. While democracy can be good and useful, it must not be the highest theme.
Any Jew in Israel understands this. If you were to ask a Jew, "Which would you prefer? In scenario A, Israel turns autocratic and rejects democracy but remains a Jewish state for Jewish people. In scenario B, Israel becomes 75% non-Jewish but remains a democracy. Do you go with A or B?"
Any Jew will say he will go with A. After all, even if Israel turns autocratic but remains Jewish, it could one day revert back to democracy(as it's not all that difficult or uncommon for political systems to change). But if Israel becomes majority non-Jewish, it is no longer and will never again be a Jewish state even if democracy lasts forever; indeed, even return of dictatorship will not make Israel Jewish again as the overwhelming majority will be non-Jewish."
Indeed, worship of 'liberal democracy' as the highest good is the disease of the West. By placing democracy, hedonism, libertarianism, money, and economic growth ABOVE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, they've lost the will and means to preserve blood, soil, and history. By rules of 'proposition nation', any transformation is 'good', 'necessary', and 'imperative' IF it leads to higher GDP, more celebration of vanity(esp via homommania, Afromania, or slut culture), more 'diversity'(a virtual religion in the West), and etc. So, themes of identity, history, and territory take a backseat to themes of atomization, political correctness, and 'tolerance' & 'inclusion' which comes down to invasion by foreign hordes. Of course, Jews get passover rights as even the most fanatical diehard libertarian or globalist will say Jews and Israel get waivers from what is demanded and expected of all other groups.
What Russians must say is, "We want and need more freedom and liberty, BUT the highest themes of Russia are blood, soil, and territory." After all, even without liberal democracy under the Tsars and Commie-tsars, Russia remained Russia, the homeland of the Russian people.
The trick is to fuse themes of blood, soil, and history with freedom.
That was the source of European and American greatness in the past. At one time, more freedom meant more freedom for the ethnos to do great things for their own people. But over time, the idea of freedom came to be divorced from ethnos and came to be centered around the individual. In traditional myths, the hero was an individual who did extraordinary things for his tribe, his people. In contrast, the modern individualism increasingly came to be about reaching the stars only for self-aggrandizement. And then, it came to see ethnos as an enemy of freedom since radical libertarians don't want to feel restrained/constrained by any obligation to any people, culture, or territory. Libertarians are like bird-folks. They see themselves as having evolved away from land-creatures who are wedded to a territory as their homeland. For globalist bird-people with wings of cosmopolitan-privilege, the notion of walls and borders is antiquated and irrelevant. They want to fly from globo-city to globo-city. Their worldview is migratory. They see every nation as anachronistic nest that must be abandoned in the globalized world where everyone should have wings to fly around all over. No wonder that the migratory globo-bird-people feel most affinity with mass migrations of peoples. Globo-elites see themselves as birds-of-privilege and they see Third World migrants as fish-of-need. (Also, by sentimentally latching onto the poor migratory masses, the rich migratory elites justify their own winged privilege of flying all over and shi**ing on everyone below. Of course, Jewish birds insist on having their iron nest in Israel.) These globo-elites put their individual privilege at the center of everything. Sure, they act like they're for 'social justice' and 'progress', but that's mostly empty talk by people like Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos, George Soros, and the like who live in an Elysium Sky world safe from troubles on the ground.
For most people, their land really matters to their well-being. It matters economically and psychologically, culturally and historically. Since they don't have much in the way of private property, they feel 'rich' in the knowledge of at least having a place to call their (sacred)homeland. So, when Third World masses pour into their nations, the effect is like attack of winged monkeys in Wizard of Oz. This is why Polish and Hungarian patriots don't want their nations to be monkey-invaded by Turd World hordes. To patriots, Soros and his ilk are like the Wicked Witch, and the third world masses are like flying monkeys(or sea monkeys as they come by boat to Europe).
The result is massive chaos, but since the main themes of globalism are individuality, 'inclusion', and diversity, the elites don't care what they are doing to the world. And of course, they got their privileges and goodies and remain above the ground on which all hell is breaking loose. Also, they rigged the narrative and ideology so as to have the moral high-ground against patriots. So, if patriots say they want to defend the homeland, the piggish winged elites call them 'far right' and 'neo-nazi'. Elites denounce the patriots for not being 'inclusive' while ignoring the fact that the elite world is the most exclusive domain reserved only for those who 'belong'. While the elite world is also 'diverse', it is the diversity of the moneyed class. In contrast, diversity for the masses means that white people in the West must be pushed aside by grubby morons from Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, China, Guatemala, and worst of all, the ghastly continent of Africa with all those crazy Negroes with muscles and aggression. (Look how Africans act in Australia. Ugabuglobalism is the worst.)
Russia must lead the way with its brand of Themocracy that is for more freedom and rule of law BUT in service of the ultimate themes of Russian identity, territory, and history. So, freedom must serve something higher. Freedom serving Freedom is like cannibalism. Freedom needs to serve deeper themes, those with lasting value, like blood and soil.
After all, what is Chinese-ness? Chinese had different religions and cults(Buddhism, Taoism, Maoism), but in the end, what binds all of Chinese history and culture together is a sense of blood ancestry and territory. The deepest themes of Chinese-ness isn't about political systems, economic ideology, or individualist fashions. After all, China no longer has emperors or the concept of Mandate of Heaven. But it's still China because it's the land of Chinese who remember their own history. Now, most people are agreed that capitalism is the most productive system, rule of law & private property are most useful, and republican/democratic system of government tends to be most just. So, it'd be good for peoples to adopt them BUT with the knowledge that those cannot be the highest or deepest themes, which must be blood, soil, and history. Capitalism, democracy, and rule of law must serve something more lasting and deeper in meaning.
Indeed, there are two sides to human nature. One side longs for freedom, but another side longs to serve something. It's like that Bob Dylan song, "Gotta Serve Somebody". This is why even globalists with privilege come to feel empty and hollow and eventually become neo-religious and search for something 'higher' to serve. Clever Jews understand this and urge globalized gentiles to serve holy homos, Magic Negroes, and Israel as the highest goods. Globalists feel this craving to serve something so badly that they go with the officially approved neo-religions that deify Jews, Negroes, and homos. (Why don't they serve their own race, culture, and history? Because globalism has infected their minds that gentiles, especially white ones, who primarily serve their own people, culture, territory, and narrative are 'far right', 'racist', and 'neo-nazi').
People need to serve something. This is why even Libertarians get all weepy about MLK. Even Rand Paul go boo hoo and wets his pants over the thug puncher of women. To serve something is part of human nature, no less than the desire to be free. After all, being free just to be free feels good for awhile but gets vapid and pointless. It's like a novelist or film-maker wants the freedom to express himself but also to serve a story, idea, message, meaning, or cause. Sergei Eisenstein was a great film-maker, but he didn't just make movies to show off his talent. He served the Revolution. SEVEN SAMURAI shows how warriors gain meaning by serving a cause, a noble one of protecting farmers from bandits.
Jews understood this aspect of human nature and came up with the idea of Covenant. It means Jews must serve God. This was a brilliant move because if Jews didn't serve God, their human-nature-desire-to-serve-something might have led to serving another tribe or kingdom more powerful than the Jews(as people tend to worship the powerful). By making Jews serve God, they were immune to serving another tribe or people. And to incentivize Jews to serve God, Jews made God the most powerful and only God in the world. After all, if the Jewish God were a weakling god or just one of the many other gods, Jews might feel tempted to worship the gods of a more powerful people. But by making their God the only God, Jews could only serve God. And through the Covenant, Jews were told that they have a duty to serve this God. But more clever yet, the Covenant meant that God, the ultimate power, had a special duty to help the Jews. So, Jews were to serve God who was to 'serve' Jews, and that meant Jews must serve Jews. Very ingenious arrangement.
When we compare Jews and East Asians in the West, we see how Jews serve their own identity and power because they have this covenant mindset. In contrast, East Asians outside East Asia easily come to serve OTHER peoples, especially Jews, homos, and Negroes, since they have no concept comparable to the Covenant. So, their human-nature-need-to-serve-something can easily be directed to serve the 'new gods' of Jews, homos, and Negroes.
Anyway, Russia needs to ditch the notion of Third Rome. It must think in terms of Second Israel or Zion for Russians.
So-called 'liberal democracy' of the West says the white folks of the West must sacrifice everything for the 'propositions' of globalism. So, even identity/inheritance, culture, history, and territory must be sacrificed or surrendered IF doing so furthers the proposition of 'liberal democracy' that has become all about 'diversity', 'inclusion', and GDP(that, btw, mainly benefits the top 1%). This is an inversion of the old principle that all freedoms must ultimately serve the nation, people/ethnos, culture, and history. This principle still exists ONLY IN ISRAEL. Outside Israel, Jewish elites fear and loathe it as promoting solidarity among gentile majorities of nations that can serve as bulwark against Jewish supremacist penetration. So, Jews rigged the globalist narrative so as to make gentiles feel that their serving their own kind is 'evil'. But Jews love it in Israel because it means consolidation of Jewish power and preservation of Jewish pride of identity.
What Russia must do is promote an order that is democratic, enterprising, and individualist BUT where the highest themes are nation, culture, and territory. Russian human nature is like that of rest of humanity. One part of Russians want to be free. Another part of Russians want to serve something. The magic formula is for Russians to be free to serve their people, culture, and homeland.