Vladimir Putin and George Soros have each provided us fascinating glimpses into modern geopolitics this week.
I have read each in their entirety today and it is very interesting seeing how both describe the current global political climate and the events of 2016.
Putin’s speech is the less newsworthy of the two but he makes some very interesting statements and allusions in it. Soros’ is both much shorter and to the point, and has some hopeful elements for those who share our thoughts on Europe.
Below I will shares quotes from each and my thoughts on them, starting with the transcript of Putin’s press conference.
Putin on Russian military strength:
Putin: If you listened carefully to what I said yesterday, I talked about strengthening the nuclear triad and in conclusion said that the Russian Federation was stronger than any potential – and this is key – aggressor. This is a very important point, and not an incidental one.
What does it mean to be an aggressor? An aggressor is someone who can attack the Russian Federation. We are stronger than any potential aggressor. I have no problem repeating it.
I also said why we are stronger. This has to do with the effort to modernise the Russian Armed Forces, as well as the history and geography of our country, and the current state of Russian society. There are a whole host of reasons, not least the effort to modernise the Armed Forces, including both conventional weapons and the nuclear triad.
Putin, after being asked about meddling in the 2016 Presidential Election to help Trump get elected:
Putin: I have commented on this issue on a number of occasions. If you want to hear it one more time, I can say it again. The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside factors. I have questions and some thoughts in this regard.
We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also in control. Did we, or I also do that? We may have celebrated this on the “vestiges of a 17th century chapel,” but were we the ones who destroyed the chapel, as the saying goes? This is not the way things really are. All this goes to show that the current administration faces system-wide issues, as I have said at a Valdai Club meeting.
It seems to me there is a gap between the elite’s vision of what is good and bad and that of what in earlier times we would have called the broad popular masses. I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy.
I find the end of that last section very interesting because it almost perfectly mirrors an article I wrote back in the fall called ‘Identitarians In The Sandbox’, pointing out the utter outrage Rachel Maddow (on the left) and various neocons (on the ‘right’) showed at Trump supporters cheering Nigel Farage and liking Vladimir Putin. In it I pointed to the fact that Russia is now far more culturally and demographically similar to 1950’s America- or present-day rural America- than the modern United States as a whole is, and that this is why Republican voters now sympathize with it to such an extent. To make a play upon the common refrain that one often hears at election time, that the state of Pennsylvania is- culturally and politically- “Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between”, then the United States as whole could now be called ‘New York and Los Angeles with Russia in between”.
The fact that Putin is saying something similar is highly interesting.
He also speaks about Donald Trump’s victory against the odds:
Putin: They would be better off not taking the names of their earlier statesmen in vain, of course. I’m not so sure who might be turning in their grave right now. It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win. (Applause).
Putin, after being asked whether Obama really did tell him- in regards to hacking and election interference- to “cut it out” (classic wimpy Obama-ism I might add):
Putin: As concerns interference and what we discussed with President Obama. You may have noticed that I never speak about the private conversations I have with my colleagues.
On the hacks themselves and the Democrat Party response:
Putin: First, about the interference. I already responded to one of your fellow journalists from the United States. The defeated party always tries to blame somebody on the outside. They should be looking for these problems closer to home.
Everybody keeps forgetting the most important point. For example, some hackers breached email accounts of the US Democratic Party leadership. Some hackers did that. But, as the President-elect rightly noted, does anyone know who those hackers were? Maybe they came from another country, not Russia. Maybe somebody just did it from their couch or bed. These days, it is very easy to designate a random country as the source of attack while being in a completely different location.
But is this important? I think the most important thing is the information that the hackers revealed to the public. Did they compile or manipulate the data? No, they did not. What is the best proof that the hackers uncovered truthful information? The proof is that after the hackers demonstrated how public opinion had been manipulated within the Democratic Party, against one candidate rather than the other, against candidate Sanders, the Democratic National Committee Chairperson resigned. This means she admitted that the hackers revealed the truth. Instead of apologising to the voters and saying, “Forgive us, our bad, we will never do this again,” they started yelling about who was behind the attacks. Is that important?
Again, on the Democrats:
Putin: But it is very clear that the party which calls itself Democratic and will remain in power until January 20, I think, has forgotten the original meaning of its name. This is particularly so if you look at the absolutely shameless way they used administrative resources in their favour, and the calls to not accept the voters’ decision and appeals to the electors. As I already said, this is not a good thing. But I hope that once the electoral passions have died down, America, which is a great country, will draw the needed conclusions and keep them in mind for future elections.
The above quotes represent only a tiny amount of the 3.5 hour long press conference, but overall I would say that Putin seemed hyper-aware of the cultural issues at play today geopolitically- the ‘metapolitics’ almost. He also expressed repeated irritation at ‘the forces of globalism’. At different points in the press conference that was the Democrats in the U.S., EU bureaucrats, reporters asking him about ‘civil rights’ in Russia, etc.
He also seemed highly confident in the speech. Another two observations I had, which are probably precipitated more by the fact that I have not read Putin’s speeches widely before, were 1) his mastery of economics, which was profound (I would encourage everyone to read the first part of the speech which is mostly economic- his discussion of it seemed far deeper than most politicians one hears, and 2) what could be called perhaps sentimentality(?) or (unexpected) gentleness, for instance when he speaks out against slapping one’s children (corporal punishment) and a couple other spots like that. Also of interest perhaps were his comments on demographics in which he lauded his nation’s current positive net population growth (more births than deaths).
If Putin’s speech had somewhat more implicit relevance to our cause, George Soros’ article was much more direct. The overall tone could be described as bitter and moderately resigned yet somewhat frenetic (at least for Soros, whose writings I have read more widely).
The title is “Open Society Needs Defending”, and is Soros at his most classic.
Soros: I was an avid supporter of the European Union from its inception. I regarded it as the embodiment of the idea of an open society: an association of democratic states willing to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the common good.
This is the overriding vision. Globalism and open borders in Europe= “the common good”.
Soros: The rise of anti-EU movements further impeded the functioning of institutions. And these forces of disintegration received a powerful boost in 2016, first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional reforms.
Democracy is now in crisis. Even the US, the world’s leading democracy, elected a con artist and would-be dictator as its president. Although Trump has toned down his rhetoric since he was elected, he has changed neither his behavior nor his advisers. His cabinet comprises incompetent extremists and retired generals.
There is a note of rage and alarm in his rhetoric that I have not quite seen before in other, past Soros articles.
He also offers predictions on the US:
Soros: I am confident that democracy will prove resilient in the US. Its Constitution and institutions, including the fourth estate, are strong enough to resist the excesses of the executive branch, thus preventing a would-be dictator from becoming an actual one.
But the US will be preoccupied with internal struggles in the near future, and targeted minorities will suffer. The US will be unable to protect and promote democracy in the rest of the world. On the contrary, Trump will have greater affinity with dictators. That will allow some of them to reach an accommodation with the US, and others to carry on without interference. Trump will prefer making deals to defending principles. Unfortunately, that will be popular with his core constituency.
Soros’ greatest worries emerge when he begins discussing Europe, however.
Soros: I am particularly worried about the fate of the EU, which is in danger of coming under the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose concept of government is irreconcilable with that of open society. Putin is not a passive beneficiary of recent developments; he worked hard to bring them about. He recognized his regime’s weakness: it can exploit natural resources but cannot generate economic growth. He felt threatened by “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. At first, he tried to control social media. Then, in a brilliant move, he exploited social media companies’ business model to spread misinformation and fake news, disorienting electorates and destabilizing democracies. That is how he helped Trump get elected.
The same is likely to happen in the European election season in 2017 in the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. In France, the two leading contenders are close to Putin and eager to appease him. If either wins, Putin’s dominance of Europe will become a fait accompli.
I do not know whether the latter paragraph is simply Soros giving voice to his fears, or represents his legitimate prediction for what will happen. If a legitimate prediction, then 2017 surely would be a year of change! The Italian election was positive, but if Geert Wilders wins in the Netherlands and Merkel somehow loses in Germany, that would represent a pretty monumental shift (especially if it includes a le Pen win in France).
Soros calls this potentiality a ‘victory for Putin’ and states that it would allow for Putin’s “dominance” of Europe. This seems hyperbolic but perhaps Soros is speaking what is to him an emotional truth more than a literal one. Or he expects the type of people who read his articles will believe it anyway.
It is this question of likelihoods that is key however. Surely were Nationalists to come to power across Western Europe and rollback all of the mass-immigration, nutjob liberalism, ethno-masochism, and cultural suicide that has been achieved in the last forty years, that would be the death of all that Soros has pushed for, but such an ‘electoral Reconquista’ does not strike me as likely at this juncture, whatever Soros’ temporarily fearful ramblings might be.
Those of us fighting and praying for such a Reconquest know that it can only come once Western Europe disintegrates, K-Selection ramps up, and native Europeans are truly-confronted with their own existential-mortality. Soros’ article provides hope of that kind too however, as the concluding two paragraphs show:
Soros: I hope that Europe’s leaders and citizens alike will realize that this endangers their way of life and the values on which the EU was founded. The trouble is that the method Putin has used to destabilize democracy cannot be used to restore respect for facts and a balanced view of reality.
With economic growth lagging and the refugee crisis out of control, the EU is on the verge of breakdown and is set to undergo an experience similar to that of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Those who believe that the EU needs to be saved in order to be reinvented must do whatever they can to bring about a better outcome.
A “breakdown” similar to what the Soviet Union went through in the early 1990’s would be a drastic, historic development in Western Europe. If Soros truly thinks that is coming- if that is not fearful hyperbole on his part- then that is a game changer indeed.
For it means that Western Europe would have the political vacuum and existential catalysts needed for Reconquest to occur. Soros and the evils he has wrought in Europe, which leaders like Merkel brought forth through their zealous religious devotion to Cultural-Marxism and ethnic-suicide, would be cleansed from the land. The issue of Islam and Islamic invasion would be dealt with in one way or another. “Blood and soil” European homelands would be created, dedicated to preserving our people’s heritage and history.
It is a beautiful and hopeful vision which at this time seems far, far away, but given the developments that have Soros so worried, it is seeming more and more possible every day.
*Feedback Highly Welcomed*
Brothers: What thoughts have you on these speeches and tidings? Do Soros’ statements give you hope? What does 2017 have in store for Europe?