Why Vladimir Putin is Russia’s Proto-Tsar

My second article published at Return of Kings. It’s a light analysis of the Putin phenomenon, of the underlying currents that are in both passive and active fashion directing a regime long dismissed as an exercise in mere opportunism. Opportunism plays a part of course, but it seems likely that Vladimir Putin is the first stage in a metamorphoses of Russian politics which must return to its roots. The farthest reaches of the Occident, and indeed the heartland of Orthodox Christianity is adrift without her tsar, the last having been so callously executed by the butchers of Marx.

Pray God, deliver Holy Russia and bless the Third Rome.

http://www.returnofkings.com/71837/why-vladimir-putin-is-russias-proto-tsar

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Why Vladimir Putin is Russia’s Proto-Tsar

  1. I wasn't aware that Putin was a Christian? He is certainly not a white Supremacist. How then exactly is he proto-tsar? Is his sovereignty a function of a deracinated worldview? I am certainly willing to entertain the idea that Putin and his Russians are not bona fide enemies of white Supremacy, but in what way is he and his Russian followers true allies of the American white Christian (is that a double redundancy due the modern vex)?

    Like

  2. He is. Was baptized in secret by his mother I believe. Today, he is very much a proponent of the church. No, he is not a white supremacist. Nor were the tsars prior to the revolution. Russia has always practiced the prerogative of the imperium, which has included many non-whites in its borders (i.e – the Cossacks). The white Russians have always claimed a political dominion, but never using claims of supremacy.

    By your definition of 'white supremacy', I couldn't say. Since you invented it, you'd have to be the judge, so I'll let you make that call.

    Like

  3. Mr. Citadel…

    So Putin is an open Catholic?

    European ETHNICS — including “white” Russians — are at war with the white RACE… At war with white Supremacy, both in the liberated and absolute sense (are borh deracinated AND post-Christian). European “white” ethnics are, by and large, entirely deracinated and anti-Christian. They are ethnic nationalists who could care less about the fate of the white man. And if one cares not for the fate of the white man due an ethnic chauvinism mired in deracination then one cannot honestly claim to care about the fate of Christianity. The white race and Christianity are like hand and glove. A deracinated “Catholic” in Putin is just nonsensical… Anti-tsarist… A liberated “emperor.”

    Like

  4. He is Orthodox, so certainly not Roman Catholic

    Sorry, I just don't subscribe to 'pan-whitism'. The ethnicities within the Occident are witness to the myriad differences between themselves. These cannot be ignored or overshadowed, as Yugoslavia proved.

    Like

  5. If I may ask this Mr. Citadel, what makes the current “leader” in Russia not just one more absolutist dictator? In the old West legitimacy (which place the ruler under the law) was key to preventing dictatorship.The distinction between the old West which I represent, and the old East which you represent can be summed up in the different words we use, both translated as Emperor in modern English. While East uses αὐτοκράτωρ (autokrátōr), one who rules from his own power, the tittle of the High King of the West is imperator, one who has received the authority of command, and thus the West is distrustful of autocratic or absolutist power.

    Like

  6. I'll address this in sections.

    I don't think Vladimir Putin qualifies as an absolutist dictator for a few reasons. The first is that he could conceivably be removed via non-violent means. I am not an expert in intra-political relations within Russia, but I doubt Putin is heads and shoulders above everyone else in terms of influence, as someone like Joseph Stalin was. There are likely people who could challenge him, but do not wish to because he serves their interests for now.

    Russia also maintains the trappings of a republic. How accurately these reflect 'popular will' is up for debate, but it remains plausible that Putin could be voted out, just as Viktor Yanukovych could have plausibly been voted out had he not bee overthrown.

    I think differences between east and west in how they view the autocratic principle are more formalities than substantive properties. Autocracy in the east, west, and pretty much everywhere else is almost always checked by some balance, but it is not a formal balance like that recognized in the Magna Carta or more radically, the US Constitution. An autocrat must take into account the various spheres of authority which he himself ought not intrude upon, i.e – the authority of the priesthood, and of the male headship of families, in some cases the military meritocracy, etc. When a ruler invades these spheres, we see totalitarianism, but I don't think this is a feature of history in either the west or the east prior to the onset of Modernity (largely because it just wasn't technically feasible). Mostly, we see bad leaders get axed.

    It is fair to say the Tsar held more power than many European monarchs, even prior to the Enlightenment, due to the influence of both the Byzantine emperors and then the Mongols. However, it still featured in most cases the same deference to spheres of authority. You also have to remember that in the West for the most part, the religious authorities were answerable to a foreign power before a local one (Catholics to the Pope) whereas in Russia the religious authority was in the Russian priesthood itself. But while out of step with Europe in this regard, Russia is analogous to many more societies in history.

    I have often viewed autocracy as being a matter of degree. There will always be one person with the most political authority, but the question is how much does he have in practice. I would prefer these functions and exercises of power be limited by custom rather than constitution. Constitutions are too easily circumvented, and such circumvention is too often justifiable.

    Like

  7. Mr. Citadel…

    Excuse my ignorance, although it changes nothing concerning Putin's ultimate loyalty? Orthodox, Russians or Russian Orthodox? Where does Putin's ultimate loyalty lay? Clearly, one can “see” the pros and cons of these divided loyalties. And perhaps it will all work out amongst those collectives, but how does this relate to JUST white Christians and what is at the root of this blossoming “love affair” with Putin that is to be found in Neo's Reaction?

    Like

  8. Herein lies a difficulty in resolving the Schism between east and west; while nationalism is the breakdown of the Catholic and Roman system, it is deeply ingrained in the Orthodox Churches not in communion with Rome, at least after 1000 A.D. This is evident in the Byzantine (later Russian) rejection of Pope Leo's translatio imperii. Your assumption that the religious authorities were subject to a foreign power belays a fundamental misunderstanding of (Western) Christendom; there were no “foreign powers” outside of the Muslim and other Oriental countries. Bishops were subject the Pope as the head of the Church, and even Kings were not absolute in their countries, they ruled (at least in theory) as sovereign representatives of the Emperor, who was subject to the law. This subsidiarity is partially present in the ancient title Tsar* of all the Russias.

    And as regards autocracy (the rule from one's own power), does it not fundamentally contradict the Western concept of Legitimacy (Imperium being rule that is granted) by placing the ruler above the law instead of under it? One sees the reaction against absolutism in Europe very clearly in the French Revolution.

    *in this case: King, the Russian Imperial title dates to 1480

    Like

  9. I am probably working under a little bit of a different definition of legitimacy. I see legitimacy judged on three criteria: theological legitimacy, moral legitimacy, and structural legitimacy.

    The measurement of a ruling power's legitimacy can be gaged by its coherence with a theological worldview (whichever you may hold), its moral character, and its structural Traditionalism. The idea of granted rule, similar to the mandate of heaven, would be by my estimation analogous in some ways to structural legitimacy. This is: if it holds power, then it has that power by right and ought not be opposed (render unto Ceasar etc.) but with the caveat that this excludes non-Traditional modes of authority and governance. Presidents and prime ministers are not protected as kings are.

    As to the question of foreign powers, it seems clear that in practice, the foreign nature of this power and thus its limitations were acknowledged. This is precisely why there were many instances of the Pope being disobeyed even by self-confessed Catholics. It is useful to think of a united Christendom, but the divisions throughout were very much real ones, and were exacerbated later with the formation of the solidified nation states, England of course is the best example of this. By 'foreign' I am more referring to a high priesthood outside of one's broad ethnic group, so the Germanic priesthood was subject to the papacy, etc. This was not necessarily unique, but maybe different from the Eastern experience.

    The issue of being above or under the law is confusing for me because it implies that a law may be set, in this case by the monarchy, and then the king might break that law, for instance, stealing a loaf of bread, however in practice this would seem unlikely. On the subject of civil law, I don't necessarily believe in any kind of absolutism from a practical standpoint. I do think the law stems from religious edicts made by the priesthood, codified by the elite, and signed off on and put into practice by the sovereign. No ruler is well-advised to simply make law himself, and throughout history, I don't think many have cared to in most instances since law can be a rather tedious thing.

    I would assume you would want a king who was subject to the Pope, correct? In the east, since the split of the empire, religious authorities have sought a relationship of symbiosis with the monarch rather than dominion over him. My critique of the first position is not well-developed, but I believe Julius Evola tackled it extensively in his discussion of the priesthood, in fact it was one of his key departures from René Guénon who believed in the supremacy of the priesthood over the monarch in all matters.

    I have perhaps flirted with the more radical position that the priesthood should constitute almost the entirety of the legal system, but that is another can of worms.

    Like

  10. You ask where his loyalty lies, and I cannot say for certain, but riffing off of another great philosopher giant Ivan Ilyin, I would say Orthodoxy and Russians are indivisible. They are eternally bound in blood pact. The Russians can never cease to be Orthodox.

    How does it relate to just 'white Christians'? I'm not sure what you are driving at, but broadly it displays an instance where white Christians are actually increasing their political clout rather than seeing it diminish to nothing. This is a good thing, no?

    Neo's Reaction would be how Keanu Reeves responded to being told he was “the one”. As for NeoReaction, I do not speak for it, nor should you take my articles and ruminations as representative of the NeoReactionary movement. For that, you can look at the Hestia Society who are the owners of that brand. I am simply a humble Throne & Altar Reactionary, and like many on the 'alt-right', I enjoy seeing Liberals defeated, as they are being defeated in Russia. It's not to say I don't have serious disagreements with elements of the country, for certain I do, but the successful fending off of the Liberal hydra is worthy of praise.

    Like

  11. It's interesting that you bring up modern nation-states, especially England, as the modern nation-state is a primarily a Protestant invention. Specifically in the case of England, Henry VIII declared through Parliament that England was an Empire, thus (in his mind) justifying his split with the rest of Christendom (that is, the Holy Roman Empire). Legitimacy in mind is granted, through two sources, the first and primary being the law, when that is in dispute or does not exist the Emperor and the Church. Not a structure of domination, but an ordered hierarchy based on the principle of subsidiarity with God at its apex.

    What is your opinion of (Eastern) Orthodoxy and Nationalism?

    Like

  12. Mr. Citadel…

    This is what I read…

    Russian Orthodox = racialized Christian = white Supremacy…

    In other words, in your mind the true Russian Orthodox is the closet to objective Supremacy… Closest to perfected being… Closest to The Perfect Being… Closest to Perfection, “itself.”

    Why is this so? Does the Russian have some inherent desire for Perfection?

    What is the real schism between the Russian Orthodox and the Anglo-German Protestant? Is the former set for decimation similar to the latter? Do these two Christian entities not ultimately fall within the spectre of white Supremacy in the absolute sense?

    Like

  13. And the white Supremacist's First Law Is that white man strives towards Supremacy or he is in descent.

    All the “schisms” that follow are a manufactured crisis… An ideological-influenced procedural dispute necessitating bureaucracy… And a bureaucracy that finds “luxury” living in obscene parasitism… Only to spread this parasitic infection to an increasingly disappointed mass. A mass who being unable to keep “up” with the wealthy degenerates, choose an accelerated descent and their own unique pleasurably petty self-destruction..

    So “we” are so far removed from the subject on how to ultimately organize a civilization when one is talking about a super-duper majority of crazies all within one coherent territory..

    The enemies of white Christians understand why segregation, separatism and Supremacy are so “evil” and “dangerous.” For the anti-white Christian, segregation equals self-annihilation. “Blacks” left to their very own devices will rapidly racially self-annihilate. Jihadists left to their very own devices will rapidly religiously self-annihilate. Homosexuals left to their own devices will NATURALLY self-annihilate. The Jew qua Jew left to his very own devices will rapidly and rebelliously self-annihilate.

    The genuine white Supremacist if left to his own devices… I imagine he would flourish once again.

    Like

  14. And does not Catholicism not fall within that spectre? There my friend, lies the real division in Christianity. Not whether or not the Churches have the True Faith (the Orthodox have that- or at least most of it) but whether or not they are in communion with the Universal Church.

    Like

  15. HR…

    White Catholics SHOULD fall within that spectre as all three trunks have grown from their equal roots in objective Supremacy. But, like most German-Anglo Protestants, the Catholic branches are most deracinated. WHO represents the REAL BLOOD of Catholicism? Which European mindset took the objective Supremacy of the Catholic Church most to heart and soul? If Orthodox is Russian and Protestantism is German-Anglo, who is the Catholic? The Spainards? The Irish? The Italians? Who is the true blood of Catholicism?

    Like

  16. HR….

    You are missing the point… In HBD terms, there is a mindset… A blood… A ethnic race of men WHO EMBRACED Catholicism MORE TRUTHFULLY than all others. Who is that? Orthodox has the Russian and Protestantism has the Anglo-German.

    Are you saying this mindset doesn't exist? Or, has existed, but is now extinct?

    Like

  17. I'm saying that MEN not ethnicity and not races which embrace Catholicism. In other words, when Protestants and Orthodox bound themselves nations (artificial at that in the case of Germany) instead of to men they left the Universal Church and the Holy Roman Empire.

    Like

  18. I have elaborated on this question before, but to my recollection only in comments on other outlets within the Reactosphere, so let me put a response into short-answer form. What we might call 'gut-nationalism' or kinism, a love for one's own and a defensiveness with regard to one's own is perfectly natural, healthy, and organic. Where I find fault, as Evola and Dávila did, is with nationalism as it relates to the Modern conception of the 'nation state'. I do not think that the mission of every nation or ethnos is to be self-determinate and independent. Distinguishable yes, but nationhood should never be necessarily analogous to statehood and this seems to be the case for nationalisms, especially those we see today. It's an error that propagates against two higher forms of political organization, both the city state at one end and the imperial ideal at the other, neither of which can exist in conjunction with what we would loosely define as 'nationalism'.

    Alas, most Modernist critics would definitely class my own worldview as 'nationalistic', but they generally aren't interested in nuances.

    Like

  19. I am not sure I understand what is meant by the “real blood” of any given religion. Neither Islam nor Christianity is bound in blood like Judaism is. I believe a Russian man may be just as devout and true to his faith as a Romanian man.

    With regards to the Holy Roman Empire, the Protestant/Catholic divide is a little different to the Orthodox/Catholic divide. Remember, we also felt we had the descent of the Roman Empire in Constantinople. The Protestants didn't believe any such thing mattered. We also only reject the primacy of the bishop in Rome, whereas Protestants reject the primacy of any priesthood outright.

    I think the gulf between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is not nearly as wide as that which exists with regards to Protestants. However, I wouldn't want to turn this blog into a theological sounding board. My main arena of study is theoretical politics.

    Like

  20. Not to drag this on, but I would like to add that before you rejected the primacy of the Bishop in Rome, you rejected the primacy of the Emperor in Aachen, and that in my mind is when the schism really started. (I did not mean to suggest earlier that divide between Catholic and Protestants and that between Catholics and Orthodox was equivalent, only that it has the same root cause.)

    Like

  21. Quite true. The split in this regard has very much to do with the succession of the Roman Empire. In the West, it was continued with the Holy Roman Empire, and in the East, we considered Constantinople to be the true seat of the second Rome (later some would debate this spiritual legacy migrated to Russia). Though obviously the split between east and west in political terms actually predates the rise of Christianity itself.

    The split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism remains one overshadowed by bad blood, particularly in certain geographic regions, but my hope has been with the recognition that a satanic cult rivaling that of any of the tribes who dwelt in the Holy Land in ancient times has infected the entire Occident, such differences can be laid aside even if only temporarily to pursue a common goal, on that which rests the salvation or annihilation of Europe.

    Like

  22. Mr. Citadel…

    What I'm saying is that in HBD terms there is a genetic profile more “susceptible” to embracing the Catholic meme most truthfully thus nominating itself as a target for annihilation JUST AS IT SEEMS to apply to the German-Anglo genetic profile in regards to Protestantism and the Russian genetic profile in regards to Orthodox. WHO is that particular genetic profile in regards to Catholicism? Is the claim that there is no such genetic profile then a claim that Catholicism is more truthful? By what counterintuitive logic is a thing more true given a general lukewarm embrace and devoid the grasp of a race of men gripping wholeheartedly?

    Like

  23. “I believe a Russian man may be just as devout and true to his faith as a Romanian man.” — Mark Citadel

    But this is the very problem… The idea that the Russian and Romanian are equally constituted to embrace Orthodoxy most truthfully. This is an egalitarian mindset every bit as radical as any notion of “equality” currently out there. Not only that, the enemies of Christianity do not believe such an equality exists even if liberal “Christians” attest to such a thing.

    So it's one thing to claim a faith universally open to all and a whole other thing to say all are equally predisposed to embrace the faith most truthfully.

    There must be, at any one time, a specific genetic profile, ie., race, that worships Perfection IN THE Catholic way more truthfully than all others? WHO is it? They exist. Or, they have been annihilated.

    Like

  24. Thordaddy,

    You assume race as something inherent in man's very being, but “in the Beginning it was not so.” Do you believe in Adam and his universal fatherhood of all men? Do you believe in Christ the second Adam and the universal salvation* which His death attained? If not, you will never understand Catholicism or even Orthodoxy.

    *universal in the sense of accessible to all men, but not necessarily applying to all men. It would apply only to those who accept it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s