Putin May Look Like an Ethno-Nationalist, But He’s Far Too Cozy With Certain Jews and Muslims
THERE IS AN unfortunate tendency in right-wing dissident circles here in America to view Vladimir Putin through rose-colored glasses. There is no question that Putin is not generally beholden to deeply anti-White, frequently Jewish oligarchs, in the same way Western leaders are. There is also no question that Putin is far less hostile to traditional Western ways of thinking (he apparently links them to Christianity, though) than Western leaders are. Similarly, as a geopolitical strategist, Putin is head and shoulders above most Western political leaders.
Nevertheless, all is not green on the other side of the fence. Putin may not be nearly as foolish and incompetent as our leaders, but he is not all good either. Many ignore the fact that Putin is more pragmatist than populist, that he is more than willing to placate or even abet the enemies of the White race, ethnic Russians included, when it suits his political interests. He may not hate Whites and Christians, as many Western leaders clearly do, but he is not immune to pressure from powerful business interests, precarious compromises, back-dealing, and outright corruption. He is no rightist ideologue. He is equal parts Orban and Berlusconi. That can be a good thing in certain contexts, but it carries with it some very serious perils.
Putin’s tolerance of large-scale immigration from the Caucasus and Central Asia speaks to his practical nature. He is understandably concerned about low birthrates among ethnic Russians and the economic stagnation that can accompany a lack of laborers. The cost of his practicality here is not trivial, however. Importing Islam from Central Asia and the Caucasus means tolerating non-Russian ethnic enclaves with alien political and moral values. It also means a significant uptick in the terrorism threat. Central Asian militants, like Chechen militants, are known to blow up apartment buildings and train cars on occasion. This is not an insignificant price to pay for more cheap labor for businesses and more cannon fodder for the Russian military.
Of course, it must be noted that Muslim immigrants from Central Asia are not typically as problematic as Muslim immigrants from the regions the rest of Europe imports them from (North Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East). Central Asians have 5-10 IQ points on ethnic Arabs and South Asians and are simply not as inclined to radicalism. Radical religious thinking is not really part of their heritage. Rampant radical Islam seems dependent upon both bad ideas and bad genes. Islam alone is not sufficient. The Kazakhs and Albanians, for example, are not really inclined to Islamism and terror. Albania in particular, despite being predominantly Muslim, is a fairly irreligious and overall religiously tolerant country. A sufficiently high native IQ and a healthy diversity of non-Sunni Islamic sects (Alawite, Twelver, Bektashi, Ismaili) seem to act as buffers against Islamism among Muslims. [Some of these Muslims on the Russian border areas are, for all practical purposes European genetically. Many others are half or or predominantly European. But half or predominantly European is not the same as European. — Ed.]
Moreover, many of Islam’s greatest minds come from Central Asia. The regions just south of the Eurasian Steppe (specifically Khorasan and Khwarezm) are without question the most intellectually prolific predominantly Muslim regions. Multiculturalists like to point to men like Avicenna and Al-Khwarizmi as great Middle Eastern polymaths, not knowing that both were not really Middle Eastern at all, and neither were Arab. Both were actually essentially “steppe” Persians from modern-day Uzbekistan (historically “Kharasan” to Iranians). Even the greatest Iranian poet of all time, Rumi, was from greater Khorasan, in either extreme northern Afghanistan or extreme southern Tajikistan. So was Zoroaster himself in all likelihood.
Nevertheless, it is hard to argue that an influx of Muslim workers from Central Asia will promote stability or tranquility in Russia, will make Russia genuinely wealthier or better off in the long-term, or will serve to preserve Russian traditions and mores. Yet Putin, supposed defender of White, Western peoples, is happy to crack down on dissidents who point this hard reality out. Fundamentally totalitarian Cultural Marxist hate speech codes are enforced just as zealously in Russia as they are in Germany, Sweden and the UK. Indeed, Germany’s hate speech provisions were the template for Russia’s! How can Russians oppose the Islamization of Russia if they can’t even mock Muhammad or criticize Islam?
Russia is fortunate that it is not a top destination for desperate and poor 3rd world populations, but this is primarily a result of certain economic and cultural factors. It has little to do with Putin or his policies. Moreover, although Muslims have been a part of Russian society for many centuries, there is a big difference between a 5% Muslim minority and a 25% Muslim minority. A 25% Muslim minority will radically transform the fundamental character and social fabric of Russia. Moreover, it’s hard to see a 25% Muslim minority not increasing from there.
Although nominally speaking Russia is a nation where church and state are separate, the Russian Government has a long history of funding religious structures and meddling in religious affairs. The Russian government uses soft power to control and direct the content of religious sermons and the official stances of large religious organizations, especially in the Muslim community. Although the voices of Tatarstani clerics like Valiulla Yakupov and Ildus Faizov are Muslim voices to be cherished by all infidels, in that they take a hard stand against Jihad and Islamism, they likely had some links to the Kremlin.
We see a similar phenomenon here in America. It is not a coincidence that American evangelicals are hardcore Zionists. The religious propaganda they consume daily is financed heavily by Jewish oligarchs and powerful Zionist entities connected to the DC swamp. The silly ideas they are constantly bombarded with are not just indirectly compromised, but directly compromised, by the the interests and values of the [Jewish-dominated] US power structure.
High-profile moderate clerics (like Yakupov and Faizov) are probably largely sincere about their desire for peaceful interfaith relations within and without Russia, but their notoriety is often no accident. Indeed, the perception within the Muslim community that Yakupov and Faizov might be compromised by outsiders/infidels probably contributed to their being targeted by radicals in 2012. The Kremlin has the means to thrust certain Islamic scholars into the fore and render them influential, just as the US power structure has the means to make porcine imbeciles like Meghan McCain and insufferable blowhards like Max Boot politically influential. Miraculous how those who serve the interests of the powerful somehow always become powerful themselves. Both the US Government and the Russian Government are willing and able to co-opt political and religious groups/movements to advance the interests of their respective empires.
At the end of the day, Putin may feel that he can import millions of Muslims and yet tame, contain, and control Islam, along with the adverse consequences of importing it, through a combination of clever campaigns to compromise religious clerics and religious movements, and by heavy-handed police state tactics, including widespread surveillance and harsh counter-terror laws. I am not so sure, however. The long-term consequences for Russia of cozying up to Islam could be quite bad, even dire. Only time will tell if he is right. Putin is a capable strategist to be sure, but no one, not even Magnus Carlsen, is entirely immune to major blunders and missteps.
One can be full of kindness and love, or in Putin’s case self-mastery and cunning, but one can not sleep next to a mad dog.
* * *
Source: Russia Insider