July 2024

Why do our rulers loathe Putin, yet so many of us admire him?

(weekend blog) Below is an article by someone much more intelligent than me explaining why our progressive, ever-so-liberal, voter-despising, internationalist rulers and the mainstream media are so afraid of Putin and everything he represents.

The gist of the article is that our rulers in the West (apart from Donald Trump obviously) and their obedient mainstream media want to eradicate the idea of national identity and countries with borders and elected leaders answerable to their voters. Instead they are using mass migration and the undemocratic, corrupt, wasteful EU to replace countries with a new socialist superstate (the EUSSR) run by a venal, self-serving unelected bureaucracy chosen from the ruling elites and their families hiding behind a sham parliament that is only interested in giving itself ever more privileges and ever more of our money.

Putin, on the other hand, believes that each country should have its own borders, traditions and national identity and that each country’s rulers’ first priorities are the well-being, safety and security of their citizens.

In summary, Putin wants what most ordinary people want. We want our countries back.

And this is anathema to our internationalist, progressive, migrant-loving ruling elites.

The great battle of the 20th Century was between Capitalism and Communism.

The great battle of the 21st Century will be between ordinary, patriotic people and their supposedly ‘democratically elected’ ruling elites.

Here’s the article:

“If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time.

“On the world stage, who could vie with him?”

What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders?

“When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.

“In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.”

Putin’s approval rating, after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Trump’s?

Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization.

What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first.

And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.

The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a “killer.” He invaded and occupies Ukraine. His old KGB comrades assassinate journalists, defectors and dissidents.

Yet while politics under both czars and commissars has often been a blood sport in Russia, what has Putin done to his domestic enemies to rival what our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has done to the Muslim Brotherhood he overthrew in a military coup in Egypt?

What has Putin done to rival what our NATO ally President Erdogan has done in Turkey, jailing 40,000 people since last July’s coup — or our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte, who has presided over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of drug dealers?

Does anyone think President Xi Jinping would have handled mass demonstrations against his regime in Tiananmen Square more gingerly than did President Putin this last week in Moscow?

Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia’s interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant.

He not only remains popular in his own country, but has admirers in nations whose political establishments are implacably hostile to him.

In December, one poll found 37 percent of all Republicans had a favorable view of the Russian leader, but only 17 percent were positive on President Barack Obama.

There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America’s elite do not take even a neutral stance.

Putin has read the new century better than his rivals. While the 20th century saw the world divided between a Communist East and a free and democratic West, new and different struggles define the 21st.

The new dividing lines are between social conservatism and self-indulgent secularism, between tribalism and transnationalism, between the nation-state and the New World Order.

On the new dividing lines, Putin is on the side of the insurgents. Those who envision de Gaulle’s Europe of Nations replacing the vision of One Europe, toward which the EU is heading, see Putin as an ally.

So the old question arises: Who owns the future?

In the new struggles of the new century, it is not impossible that Russia — as was America in the Cold War — may be on the winning side. Secessionist parties across Europe already look to Moscow rather than across the Atlantic.

Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism.

That turns out to be the big battle of our times.

4 comments to Why do our rulers loathe Putin, yet so many of us admire him?

  • David Craig

    Dear Libtard,

    I’ve read your article. One of the stupidest statements (of many stupid statements) the writer makes is that “Russia is our enemy, not Poland”. Duh. Apparently the writer has never heard of radical Islam! Apparently the writer has never noticed Muslim terrorist attacks! Apparently the writer is unaware that there are many of our friends from the Religion of Tolerance and Hate who want to seize power in Western countries and impose their control. Apparently the writer is unaware that the coming civil wars in Europe will not be between countries, but between indigenous populations and the Muslim invaders.

    Apparently the writer is a complete idiot!

  • david brown

    off topic but does anyone know who is funding Gina Miller . We know she is fronting for those behind the scene. ,but these court actions cost hundreds of thousands .
    Some years ago Lord Tebbit said in The Spectator named agents of MI6 had infiltrated the UK Independence Party.

  • William Boreham

    What a joke that blog is, ‘don’t expect the US of A to intervene a third time.’ To ‘save’ the Vietnamese they dropped three times the total WW2 bomb load on them in addition to a million gallons of insecticide, killing millions of innocents. To ‘save’ the Iraqis they invaded and overthrew the one stable entity holding the country from descending into total anarchy, the results of which we see today. Much the same with Libya where there are now over a million refugees on their coast, waiting for passage to Europe, Afghanistan? Beter not to mention that screwup and I almost forgot to mention a 78 day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to turn Kosovo into a Muslim state – so thanks America, I think we could manage without Yankee’s ‘intervening’ in any future UK conflict – our death toll would be too high. And as for intervening in Europe historically if only the Yanks had kept their noses out of WW1, the conflict would have ended with a genuine armistice of mutual exhaustion, not the draconian Versailles Treaty that inevitably led to Hitler and WW2. – and they only entered WW2 because of Pearl Harbour, not to protect we British. Is American free these days anyway? Try now talking honestly about race, sexuality, gender differences, government spying or any other matter of importance over there – they will shut you up and get you fired in a heartbeat. And for Scotland- England, the USA is so divided these days, I expect to see most of the southern states secede to Mexico quite soon anyway as Latinos will become the majority in the polling booths.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>