Vladimir Putin Mocks The Democrats

This is why we love Putin in this household.

How in the world is Russia to blame for the Democrats losing White voters? They’ve been steadily losing White voters for generations. It is because of their own message, not anything Russia is doing. Mitt Romney actually won a greater share of the White vote in the 2012 election.

Remember when Bill Clinton could win West Virginia, Arkansas, Georgia and Kentucky? Remember when Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he lost Tennessee? Remember when John Kerry lost every Southern state in 2004? As Putin points out below, how could you look at the Southern state legislatures or congressional delegations and not conclude that the Democrats have a massive problem with White voters?

The only thing that has changed is that Trump performed much better with Northern White voters than Republican candidates have in the recent elections. That’s because he was a more secular candidate, the anti-war candidate and above all else because his free-trade message resonated in the Rust Belt. It’s not really surprising either given the inroads Republicans had already made in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Update: Putin’s burn on the Democrats was even more damning than I thought. He said that it would actually be FDR, not Reagan, who would be rolling in his grave:

“Trump understood the mood of the people and kept going until the end, when nobody believed in him,” Putin said, smiling. “Except for you and me.” …

“They (the Democrats) are losing on all fronts and looking elsewhere for things to blame,” he told reporters in a news conference that lasted nearly four hours. “In my view this, how shall I say it, degrades their own dignity. You need to learn how to lose gracefully.”

Accusing the Democrats of forgetting the “meaning of their own name,” Putin said “outstanding figures in American history from the ranks of the Democratic Party would likely be turning in their graves. Roosevelt certainly would be.” …

Andrew Jackson and FDR to name just two!

44 Comments

  1. Don’t be deceived by Putin folks. He only cares about Russia and its multi-racial empire. He sure does not care about us in any meaningful way, however appealing his positions might be in some cases.

  2. He’s being deceptive about this?

    He’s always marketed himself as head of state of the Russian Federation, a civic nationalist in their style.

    That said, Putin is much better than, say, Hitler.

    Hitler served in government from 1933 to 1945 – 12 years. He had one military victory in Spain, and an apocalyptic defeat in WW2. The German economy rebounded from the Depression early on, but when Hitler resigned in 1945, many citizens of the Reich were literally starving.

    Putin also became Prime Minister in a Weimaresque situation in 1999. Militarily he has won numerous engagements, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Georgia, Crimea and Donbas, now Syria.

    His major losses were more diplomatic, allowing the “no fly zone” in Libya, and the Jewish-Wolfs Angel coup in Ukraine. Both of these losses were a result of his belief in “personal diplomacy”, not recognizing that his opponents are literally child raping devil worshippers, who can only be trusted to do Evil.

    Economically, the Russian economy has more than tripled, and has withstood the twin hammers of sanctions and artificially low oil prices both imposed by the child raping devil worshippers.

    Putin appears to be within striking distance if not just halting the advance of the New World Order, but its collapse.

    Hitler is dead and will always be dead. Putin lives and we should support him as a fellow traveler, and respect him as a Great Man.

  3. He shouldn’t, but of course that implies correctly that Putin doesn’t care about non-Russians or their interests, yet the praise he gets around these communities sure suggests otherwise.

  4. How in the world is Russia to blame for the Democrats losing White voters?

    Putin used the Scalar Howitzer Array outside of Murmansk to program all of those folks in the Rust Belt to vote for Trump.

  5. The Democrats hate white people. They are a coalition of self hating stupid whites and jealous non-whites that hate whites. Their strategists know if they ever stop hatin’ on whitey, there’ll be nothing to bind them and so The Democrats hate white people.

  6. “He’s always marketed himself as head of state of the Russian Federation, a civic nationalist in their style.”

    Civic nationalism is white genocide while worshiping flags and khaki uniforms.

  7. Awesome!

    Whenever there’s anything positive posted about Putin in the Alt-Right, the cucks and Alt-Lite faggots appear in comment threads to raise “concerns” about Russia. Like clockwork!

  8. How is Putin heavily dependent on Jews? I am a slow pony and need some enlightenment here regarding this statement. Also: If Putin is somehow “heavily dependent” upon Jews, how does that affect his “trustworthy” quotient vis a vis the Jewish elite of America?

  9. Putin is smart enough to have avoided direct military conflict with NATO- the Imperial arm of the USSA in Europe. His successes are remarkable given the Imperial strength; he understands the Islamic threat far more than most westerners. I await his alliance with Trump to return Istanbul to Christendom as Constantinople.

  10. Are the Rus white? Yes. Are they nationalist? Yes. Putin has shown how to deal with muslim minorities in his Orthodox Christian nation. Putin does not need to declare his “white nationalism”- it exists as a self-evident principle in his government.

  11. Well obviously somebody fed Putin those lines. He doesn’t know that much about American history. Give me a break. I’m not going to let myself be manipulated by a man who opened Europe’s largest mosque in Moscow, who praised Nelson Mandela upon his death, who presently works closely with the genocidal Zuma regime in South Africa and who also believes the holocaust was the worst atrocity ever, among many other problematic beliefs. Some of you don’t appear to know the facts about Putin.

  12. I think there is a fundamental misconception of what the West is all about. Why?

    Societies are organizations created by organisms. So, the foundation of any organization, social-political-or-otherwise, must focus on the well-being of the organism. After all, an entire city can be destroyed, but if human-organisms remain, a new one can be built. German and Japanese cities were horribly destroyed in WWII, but they were rebuilt. Even Hiroshima. Why? Human organisms remained. It’s like someone can mess up an ant colony with water and feet, but as long as ants survive, they can rebuild it.

    Ideas, values, and systems all exist to serve the organism. Humans are organisms of nature and of culture. As natural organisms, they are of flesh and blood. As cultural beings, they have identities, memories, and concepts in their consciousness(created by the organ of the brains). But there must first be the organism. That is key. Even culture is secondary. After all, a people can survive even great cultural destruction. The barbarian invasions destroyed much of classical culture in Western Europe, but the European races did remain and were able to rediscover what was lost. The Bolshevik Revolution destroyed many churches and art works, but as long as Russians survived, they were able to restore much of Russian culture. The Maoist Cultural Revolution was horrible in wrecking so much, but as long as the Chinese people survived, they were able to piece together what remained and restore the continuation of Chinese culture.

    So, the fundamental foundation of EU should be the preservation, survival, and defense of the European Organism as natural being and cultural being. Other considerations are also necessary, but the foundations must be preservation, defense, and survival of the organisms. Only when such is secure can other things be considered.

    But materialism, atomization, vanity-feminism, male immaturism, interracism, and PC are weakening the very premise of European Order.

    Europeans have the tree upside down. Roots must be in the ground and offer stability to the trunk from which form the branches from which forms the leaves. A tree cannot survive if you chop it in half and if you plant it upside down with leaves as roots.

    The notion of ‘European or Western values’ are all very good, and I don’t mind liberalism either as long as its sane and sober. But they must be outgrowths of the solid and stable European trunk with roots firmly into the ground.

    An order isn’t built on ideas as premise. It is built on survival and security of the organism, and ideas grow from that.

    The problem of the West is that the idea of ‘rights’ take precedence of the idea of ‘fights’.

    Rights are abstract guarantees allowed by the state. Negative rights are for individuals who wish for autonomy, and positive rights are for the community with collective interests, such as social security.

    But for there to be a system of ‘rights’, there first has to be a secure and stable social order that guarantees the survival of the organisms. So, ‘fights’ must precede the ‘rights’.

    Fights would be the securing and strengthening of the forces that allow the organisms to survive, thrive, and reproduce in its own chosen domain. So, before there can be any talk of human rights, there must be the consideration of organismic fights.

    After all, what use are ‘rights’ on their own when only a stable and secure order can guarantee those rights in the first place?

    Whether the rights are negative(individual) or positive(collective), they are useless without the power of the state that governs and manages the Order. And for that state to operate, it has to defend the organisms of the domain. After all, those very organisms are the main supporters and enablers of the state. (It’s like the mind has to serve the body. If the mind hurts the body, the body will no longer sustain the mind, and the mind will die too.)

    If the organisms are not defended, then the order will fall apart, and then the state won’t function either. And then, all those rights will just be abstract nothings since there is no power to guarantee them via enforcement.

    Suppose Sweden continues to expose itself from massive African and Muslim invasion to the point where whites are a defenseless minority. The state would hardly function with all those barbarians and savages roaming around. Soon, the notion of ‘rights’ would be just empty talk since the Order(now disorder) would be unable to enforce anything.

    Rights don’t exist in nature. ‘Rights’ is a abstract ideal that can only be enforced by the state. But for a stable order to exist in the first place, it has to be secured by fights. Fights would determine who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’. Fights would determine which land is our land and which land is their land. While not fixed permanently — as wars can change boundaries as in WWI and WWII — , there needs to be some kind of borderline to secure the peace among competing powers. Even animals have this territorial instinct. Without such borders, any people could move into any place, and that would lead to mess and mayhem; Order simply isn’t possible with ceaseless mass migrations on a huge scale.

    Indeed, the most fundamental concept of rights, that of property rights, is founded on the reality of fights. In order to prevent everyone from bickering and attacking one another at all times, the concept of property rights acknowledges the instinct for territorial ‘fights’ within the organismic instinct. So, there is bound to be far more peace among neighbors if people know where the property begins and ends, like on Sanford and Son.

    https://youtu.be/swvn78ipqSs?t=9m27s

    It was through the struggle of fights that each domain was created, defended, and secured for posterity. And it was only when the domain enjoyed that security that it could grow and eventually develop the concept of rights that made life more pleasant for those in the domain. So, rights grew out of fights, and that means that fights must take precedence over any consideration of rights.

    Fights are not pleasant, but it is only through fights that a domain can be created and defended in order for there to be the guarantee of rights.

    Now, fights in the modern sense isn’t necessarily violent. It merely needs to use the threat of violence. So, every nation has its military and organized system of laws that favor those of the domain over those outside it who may or may not be hostile enemies. Once the fights secure a domain, then the rights can exist to make life easier and pleasant for its members. And as long as outsiders are a minority who respect the majority, they too can partake of the rights as fellow citizens. Indeed, the concept of martial law or state-of-emergency proves that fights come before rights. If a domain is under ‘existential’ threat, rights must be suspended in order to favor the fights for basic survival.

    So, in order for a nation like Germany to work, it has to first think in terms of fights. What is Germany, where is Germany, who are Germans, and what is German identity and culture? Those fight-centric things must be secured and defended by military, organization, and laws . And once there is a secure Germany with posterity, then rights can be practiced and expanded.

    But the tragedy of the Current Year is that Europeans are not allowed to think in terms of fights. Thus, they don’t know what they are, who their brethren and sistren are, what their core territory is, what their history is, and etc. Since they no sense of what they are, they have no sense of fights.

    And without the survivalist foundation of fights, the sense of rights become fuzzy, confused, vague, shifting, and even dangerous. Since rights are not seen as outgrowths of fights, they are applied to everyone. So, French rights are not about the historic racial/cultural French folks. They must apply to the world. So any invader is also deserving of French rights. And since there is no Core France, the ‘French’ must keep inviting more and more outsiders and aliens to become ‘French’ and enjoy ‘French’ rights. And Germany is under the same delusion, as is the UK where BAFTA announced that films won’t be nominated for awards unless they have ‘diversity’. So, BAFTA doesn’t defend the rights of white Britons rooted in British ‘fights’. Rather, because it rejects the idea of British identity rooted in race and culture, British rights are ‘universal’ and apply to all, and the UK must bring in more and more foreigners who are just as ‘British’ as historic Britons and deserving of ‘rights’. And the police in Rotherham must suppress any sense of fights. If a bunch of white girls are raped by Muslim gangs, the police must favor the ‘rights’ of non-whites over the basic ‘fights’ of white British girls to live in safety in their own homeland. This is what happens when rights are disconnected from fights.

    This is obviously insane. If Israel practiced this kind of ‘rights’ with neighboring Muslims, how long would the nation survive? Surely, Israel was founded on the basis of Zionist fights, and it’s been defended by nationalist fights, and Zionist rights are premised on the security availed by those fights. Indeed, even the rights that Palestinian-Israelis enjoy in Israel are possible only because Israel is secured by fights. Jews are willing to be generous with Palestinians IN Israel because they have the power and dominance. If Israelis felt as insecure as Hutus in Rwanda, the practice of rights would collapse and it would turn into bloody struggle between Jews and Arabs as in 1948.

    Western concept of human rights severed from organismic need for survival fights is useless. They are just leaves blowing in the wind from a dead tree.

    It’s like the Rule of Law must flow from the Rule of Claw, or else it’s the Rule of Flaw.

    Humans are organisms, and all organisms are in constant state of war. Though all of life has single ancestor in some single-cell organism long long long ago, the descendants of life have been attacking and eating each other. So, in a way, it’s like super-cannibalism since life eats life. And humans are no different. We destroy plants and animals for food. Humans fight humans. Even in 21st century, nations are at war. Under Obama, Libya was destroyed. Russians used military power to defend their interests. (The neocon paradox is that making Russia out to be the great enemy instills Americans with fear over getting into a war with Russia. Neocons feel that Russia is economically so small and weak that US can easily kick it butt and drive Putin from power. After all, Russian economy is less than that of Italy. US spends 10x more on military. So, neocons are confident that the US can crush Russia. But most Americans don’t want care about foreign affairs. So, the Neocons have to hype how evil and dangerous Russia is in order to get Americans all riled up against Russia. But such scare-mongering convinces Americans that, geez, maybe Russia is a badass nation, and we better not mess with it.. which defeats the whole Neocon purpose. Russia is both so dangerous that all Americans must worry about it AND so weak that the US can easily kick butt.)

    Since organisms are always at war, the premise of life is Rule of Claw. And all human orders also came into being by rule of claw, or mace, sword, spears, arrows, guns, cannons, bombs, and etc. But rule of claw itself is unpleasant and too brutish. So, there needs to be Rule of Law. But the power of law has meaning ONLY IN PLACES where it can be enforced by violence or threat of violence.

    Rule of Law is not something that exists in nature. Nor is it something that the state can guarantee in all places outside its sphere of enforcement. What happens to be the Law in the US isn’t in some other part of the world. Look at the poor sod in MIDNIGHT EXPRESS the movie. He ain’t protected by US laws there.

    Now, the Rule of Claw exists in nature, and all organisms use it to defend itself. But Rule of Claw is bloody and cruel. So, we prefer Rule of Law. But the Rule of Law must first be established by Rule of Claw(or guns or whatever). After all, US was founded through violent wars against ‘red savages’, violent repression of outlaws(like Lee Marvin characters), and violent transformation of nature filled with bears and wolves into human habitats secured by the reach of enforcement of laws.

    So, the concept of Rule of Law must be seen as outgrowth of Rule of Claw.

    Another advantage of sensible formulation of Rule of Law is the sense of limits. Clannism and tribalism are too close to Rule of Claw, as hatcoys and mcfields demonstrated all too well with their stupid vendettas. Clannism isn’t far above Claw-ism. So, clannism had to be suppressed in order for there be larger communities of united purpose. And for this to be realized, the ideal was an order with a majority population united by race, culture, and language. Thus, the nation-state is ideal for Rule of Law. Yet, if Rule of Law tries to stretch beyond the nation-state of shared ethnos and mythos, it moves into mode of empire, which is never easy to maintain because very different peoples have contrasting and competing identities, interests, customs, values, taboos, and etc. The more Rule of Law tries to expand beyond its national perimeters or the more it tries to increase diversity within its national boundaries, there’s gonna be trouble when the breaking point is reached.

    US effort to spread Rule of Law to Libya and Iraq has been disastrous. And both EU and US are suffering all sorts of shocks to the system due to increasing diversity of people of competing interests, made all the worse by the fact that the ‘good whites’ that control elite institutions are addicted to the thrill of virtue-signaling against ‘bad whites’ to score pokemon or PC-mon points with non-whites. Just look at the ‘hate hoax’ lunacy in the US.

    So, Rule of Law divorced from consideration of Rule of Claw turns into Rule of Flaw. While Rule of Claw isn’t enough for humans who deserve something higher and nobler, it must be the roots of Rule of Law as all orders must primarily defended and maintained through force and/or threat of force. Rule of Claw can give into Rule of Law only if the Rule of Law promises to use its power to defend the well being of core organisms within the domain. When Rule of Law fails to do that and promises to apply to EVERYONE across all borders, that is the beginning of the end of the Domain. All this bitching about defending ‘liberal values’ from the dangers of the ‘far right’ in the EU is such trite PC nonsense. So-called ‘liberal values’ can only be organic outgrowths of a well-defended domain of core organisms with identity and culture that are deemed worthy of defending. But when the elites of Sweden say there is no core Swedish identity and culture, that is recipe for suicide. If that is ‘liberal values’, it is nuts. It’s like believing in the worth leaves while denying the reality of trunks and the roots.

    What is so dispiriting about Current EU is that its people have forgotten their own historical lessons. The reason why Europe rose to such prominence was not because of imperial diversity but because of the spirit of independence that amazingly maintained so many dynamic states, kingdoms, and nations within that crowded continent. It was like a replay of Greek city states except on the national level.

    It was inter-diversity than intra-diversity that made the West. Empires are intra-diverse cuz different peoples come under the same power. Roman Empire was intra-diverse. The Ottoman Empire was intra-diverse. So were the Chinese empire and Russian empire. Empires develop because various peoples aren’t strong or proud enough to insist on their own independence.

    Unlike most peoples around the world who came under the power of empires, the various European folks insisted on their independence. Even when they were conquered, they worked hard to regain independence. And this spirit was behind American Independence to break from the UK and forge its own path. American Revolutionaries didn’t want to be part of the British Empire that stretched across the world. Whatever was okay for ‘darkies’ was not okay for the Founders who had the spirit to break free. Because of this powerful spirit among Europeans, even the Soviets got tired of ruling over Eastern Europeans. Though Soviets had the power, they sensed the furor and anger all around among the various nationalities that clamored for independence.

    Given that Western Roman Empire fell while Eastern Roman Empire survived, the logical wager would have been to bet on the Eastern Empire that continued with the Roman tradition. But the West kept gaining in power while the East kept slipping. Why? Among many reasons, one was that Western Europe couldn’t be quelled and united by a single power. As there were several competing kingdoms, there was fierce competition in weapons and technology, like Niall Ferguson said in the Killer Apps series. In contrast, the giant empires of Byzantine and Persians suppressed competitive spirit in the East. And much of state power was exerted in maintaining order over diverse peoples who had little in common. While mere isolation can keep a people backward, independence can make it competitive and innovative. Japan vis-a-vis China borrowed ideas from the continental giant but also maintained its independence, and that accounted for much of the achievement. Suppose China had conquered Japan and ruled over it as just another empire of China. Japanese would likely have done much less.

    Given WWI and WWII, Europeans have come to see competition among Europeans as an evil that will lead to WWIII, but this is stupid. The age of empires was finished in Western Europe after WWII and it also ended in the East with the end of the Cold War. So, the danger of wars is gone. Europe can still remain competitive with one another without war, and for this to happen, each nation must maintain its spirit of independence and pride. All nations can trade and cooperate where necessary, but the spirit of competition comes from independence of mind and spirit and identity. It’s like the Olympics encourage the spirit of competition because there are many nations. If all nations were part of a single empire, who’d care about the Olympics? Olympics started in Greece where each city-state guarded its pride and independence to the extent it could. Of course, the city-state as an organizing principle is too small for the modern world. It still works in places like Singapore, but they are small and overly depend on other nations for stability and defense. Still, the spirit of the Greek city-states was crucial to the formation of the Western spirit.

    Intra-diverse empire that rules over various peoples(crushed of their independent spirit) eventually leads to stasis and decline.

    In contrast, the inter-diverse ‘compire’ or competitive empire of independent states leads not only to sense of freedom and pride but much innovation borne of competition. And Western Europe was like a ‘compire’. It was bound by commonality of race and religion(mostly Christianity), and in that sense, most of Western Europe was a single Civilization. And yet, different groups with different identities and languages insisted on their independence and, in vying for power, they had to be ultra-competitive and never rest on their laurels.

    In contrast, the ruling elites of intra-diverse empires were either complacent in their total mastery or over-stressed on maintaining the empire together to focus on anything else. As for the subject peoples of the empire, they were often without pride and sense of independent spirit that could spark individuality and innovation. They just kept their heads low and get what is theirs. Ottoman Empire just kept slipping.

    Though we tend to look down on Arabs and Muslims, it was during the reasonably competitive era of the Cold War that there was considerable progress in that part of that world. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and etc made considerable progress(even if less than Asia) in competition with one another, sometimes friendly, sometimes not so friendly. And there were advances in technology and improvements in living standards. But all that came to an end as the US empire stretched its arms all over with endless invasions, interventions, and sanctions. As entire areas of MENA fell directly or indirectly under the power of US neo-imperialism, there was destruction and decline all around. Just look at Syria, Libya, and Iraq today. Set back 40 yrs. That’s what empires do.

    ========================————————–

  13. ‘Russia isn’t to blame for your declining fortunes with White voters’

    No, he sure is not.

    What is amazing, however, is how MANY Whites voted for Miss Hillary.

    She won the popular vote, which means that an awful lot of Whites need to have their heads examined; or, maybe, just go spend their lives in Somalia, or, worse, Selma, Alabama…

  14. According to my personal Russian sources, Mr. Coyote, the situation in Russia, today, is much like it was in 1802, in this country; this being that the central government does not extend intomost parts of the country.

    Thus, most of Russia it is run by local men – and many of them are Jews.

    In this sense, what Lew has said is true.

    Further, one of Putin’s lifetime best friends is a Jew.

    Outside of that, however, I cannot see any application for Lew’s statement.

    Merry Chrystmas!

  15. Yes, Captain, and don’t forget the Hispanick, Saracens, and the latest anti-White constituency they have been able to manufacture – LGBT.

  16. I believe the day is coming soon when Dems will be a majority non White party. Ellison is a sign of it. No White will be welcomed in the anti-White party. Where will the self haters go then?

  17. Every single “world leader” is anti-White until proven otherwise. Having said that only damn fool psychopaths, aka Neocons, would try to provoke Putin into starting WWIII.

  18. Forsaking the White working class and Trump taking advantage of it is what cost them the election. The anti-Putin stuff is all part of the (((warmongers))) latest gambit to start another big war in ME, risking WWIII in the process.

  19. Nothing emerged achieved out of Arab during this period that can be deemed as progressive. Arabs and Jews are one at the same and share same genetics. The achievements you suggest were mostly done by non-arabs settled in arabian countries or non-jewish, non-practicing muslim in arab countries. Also consider the slave labour from South asia and western input in cities like Dubai, sharjah, without them Arabs would be living in stone age. They must be grateful to the west and labourers from south asia for giving them this luxury.

Comments are closed.