Putin?

Discussion in 'Geopolitics & Global Developments' started by Pangloss, 1 August 2018.

Tags:
  1. Pangloss

    Pangloss Senior Member

    I was wondering what members of this forum think about Putin? I'm part of a few anti-Atlanticist/NazBol/TradCon groups on facebook, and on the whole there seems to be some serious shilling/fanboying for Putin.

    I'm personally not a fan. Putin is the perfect example of Oswald Spengler's Caesarism, he is the strongman of pre-death emergency, trying to counter the inevitable. Putin simply strives towards normalcy, something he will probably fail at given the Ukraine crisis, economic stagnancy and the eastward expansion of NATO.

    His whole schtick is that he is the ex-KGB politician, a skilled autocrat, supposedly someone who can keep the Atlanticist camp in check, but he has nothing more than the veneer of a historical and spiritual dimension.

    What do you chaps think?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Azaeroe

    Azaeroe Member

    Why didnt he fight on the side of assad against netanyahu?
     
  3. Werifesterian

    Werifesterian Senior Member

    Putin is nothing more than a successful kleptocrat with no interest in fighting the real enemies of our time: Islam and China.
     
  4. fschmidt

    fschmidt Senior Member

    Putin is the only leader who actively supports a traditional religion (Russian Orthodoxy). I like Putin. If you don't like Putin, tell me who is better.
     
  5. RabGospodnyy

    RabGospodnyy Member

    Putin himself is a fairly simple man given an extremely complex country to rule. He himself seems to have initially only been interested in keeping him and his associates rich, but more recently he has been developing a strategy of antagonising the West within limits while supporting select conservative and traditional forces. This is a less than optimal situation, but the other options are far, far worse. Also, as traditionalist forces are at least not actively harassed or banned as they are in the West, they have been given some space to flourish. This must not be confused with active support, however.

    Putin's main problem is that while he is an able politician and actor on the international arena, he has been unable to this day of providing Russia with a clear system of ideas in which to operate. Many in the West hold that he is extremely traditionalist and Orthodox, but official support for such groups is still quite rare (the relationship between the state and the Russian Orthodox Church is also very unhealthy). There are some signs that an ideology that can tentatively be called Putinism is actively taking root, but, seeing as it is extremely reliant on the person of Putin himself, it will automatically collapse once he is gone. However, considering that the alternatives are the West's civilisation-killing liberalism or several shades of nationalism and neo-communism, the system that is currently developing is in my opinion the lesser of very many evils.

    Speaking from the point of view of a Traditionalist, Putin is useful, but not a good long-term option. Useful, because he provides at least something of a counterweight against the US (albeit for pragmatic reasons) and allows various conservative and traditionalist forces to operate unmolested. The negatives are the fragility of the system Putin continues to support, the stifling cynicism of his rule, and his unwillingness to commit to a strong system of ideas. The best outcome would be for Putin to eventually go into retirement to be replaced by either a series of progressively more hard-line conservatives or by a tsar, with the first option being the more likely one. Thankfully, unless the West decides to go all-in and organise a coup or have a liberal forcibly elected, conservatism is on the rise in Russian society, if at a slow and unstable rate.

    That would immediately provoke open conflict with the US and Europe, something that Russia could win in a one-on-one situation, but not in a two-on-one. In addition, a significant part of Putin's inner clique has ties with the West and prevents him from entering into an open confrontation and defending Russian geopolitical goals more aggressively.

    A tsar would be infinitely more preferable. As far as religion is concerned, I advise you to do some research on the Russian Orthodox Church. It is not as traditional as it would like you to believe it is...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Superb Superb x 1
  6. Azaeroe

    Azaeroe Member

    i see

    that makes sense thank you
     
  7. Airyanem Vaejah

    Airyanem Vaejah Junior Member

    The real enemies of our time are the forces of counter-tradition. And almost no-one is fighting them. Because almost no-one is capable of that any longer. You seriously think that China and Islam are on the same level of reality? China is atheist, while Islam is still traditional (albeit in serious decline also). The real enemy is the modern world, with its thoroughly rotten mentality and pseudo-values. The real frontline is between the modern world and what's left of the world of tradition (which includes parts of Islam, especially authentic tasawwuf turuq which were still not infiltrated by the counter-initiatic forces). This should also answer the question about Putin. Russia and USA, two sides of the same tongs.
     
    Last edited: 8 August 2018
    • Superb Superb x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Azaeroe

    Azaeroe Member

    Which islamic lands would you consider sufficiently reactionary?
     
  9. Airyanem Vaejah

    Airyanem Vaejah Junior Member

    Nation states as a whole are lost to modernity, I believe. But like I wrote before, there are still some pockets of anti-modernism in the Muslim world, especially around some ancient sufi-friendly mosques and in the countryside. Even these islands of tradition are disappearing at an alarming rate. I give them two decades at best. The hour is indeed very late. Needless to say that this invasion of uncouth youth from North African and Levantine suburbs has nothing to do with traditional Islam and the same goes for Saudi Arabia and other such wahhabi/salafi strongholds. And no, wahhabism/salafism is not more akin to the original Islam. Jehovah's Witnesses and other such protestant sects also claim to represent the original Christianity, but would we consider them as such? They are clearly a very modern deviation.



    Some lucid explanations about the role of tasawwuf in Islam. There's also a full version available in the description. Don't get sucked into the zionist mind games, creating division and 'us' and 'them' mentality, modern world itself is the problem in all its forms and deviations. There's simply too much egomania in this world.
     
    Last edited: 8 August 2018
    • Like Like x 4
  10. Airyanem Vaejah

    Airyanem Vaejah Junior Member

    Yes, a Tsar would be a far more superior option. But I'm afraid, that it will never come to that again in this cycle of manifestation. The hour is too late. The bolshevik shudras have done too much damage. I would love to see another Von Sternberg to wreak some havoc on his enemies though.

    Could you please elaborate a bit on this decline of Orthodoxy? Some friends of mine have adopted it in recent years, so I'm just curious about this. I have recently read about some experiences of an Orthodox Monk from Czech Republic, who left Orthodoxy after more than 20 years I believe. He was completely disenchanted by this Church and sadly lost his faith completely.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice