Caveman Nationalism

In my latest article for RT, I discuss Vladimir Putin’s denunciation of ‘caveman nationalism.’ I note how commentators have regularly called Putin an ‘ultranationalist’, but a careful reading of his public statements reveals something very different You can read the article here.

41 thoughts on “Caveman Nationalism”

  1. This is a very good analysis. Those who describe Putin as an ‘ultranationalist’ tend to miss out the pluralism of Russian state-building and the positive relationship that the president maintains with various ethnic/religious minorities including, for instance, the Jewish community. They also forget that actual Russian ultranationalists don’t support him at all.

    Yet, what does concern me is the state-sponsored pressure on organisations like Memorial, because their activities are deemed to be anti-patriotic. Equally, we have efforts to inculcate young minds through devices like ‘patriotism classes’. There is a growing erosion of the concept of patriotic dissent and a growing convergence between support of the incumbent government and patriotism. In many ways, some of these developments are similar to abuse of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism which conflate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of Israeli policy.

    Putin is far from being an ultranationalist, but there are some very worrying trends emerging under his auspices.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The most worrying trends being Russian resilience in fight against illegal and one sided sanctions. The most worrying is probably the fact that new generation of Russians are much more self confident that generations that went through horrors of 1990’s. Or you think that 1990’s were golden years of “liberal” Russia open for plunder?


      1. Please reread my comment. I said nothing of the sort concerning the implementation of shock therapy under Yeltsin – a disastrous period. While Western caricatures are deeply misleading, there are nonetheless some deeply unhealthy societal currents in Russia which I outlined above.


    2. Memorial is a foreign agent.

      They receive monies from abroad and
      They also refuse the register as such

      Why do they think they are above the law?

      Their function is to trash the Soviet Union. Similar to what is occurring in Ukraine.

      Recently one off it’s prominent members was revealed as a pedophile and instead of showing concern for the child and the rule of law – they attack the government.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Trashing the USSR” as you put it isn’t necessarily anti-Russian. An accurate accounting of human rights abuses in the USSR is perfectly acceptable from a purely ethical position.

        Liked by 1 person

    3. “There is a growing erosion of the concept of patriotic dissent and a growing convergence between support of the incumbent government and patriotism.”

      Grisha, I can you name us a political force in Russia that is simultaniously:

      a) Anti-government.
      b) Patriotic.

      I understand, that you, as her Majesty’s loyal subject and a resident of the UK, might not be up to date. So I will wait 🙂


      1. Lyttenburgh, if you want specifics, I believe leftists such as Alexander Buzgalin and Boris Kagarlitsky are undoubtedly patriotic and anti-government. Yet there are plenty of other examples.

        In your narrative a Brit would have to be an unequivocal supporter of the illegal invasions of Iraq and Libya to be a patriot as well as whitewashing the Conservative government’s record on inequality.

        Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. It is the belief that your homeland deserves better than the incumbent government. It is regrettable that the very concept of dissent is widely considered to be ipso facto unpatriotic in Russia, as demonstrated in your latest use of ad hominem attacks.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “Alexander Buzgalin and Boris Kagarlitsky are undoubtedly patriotic and anti-government”

        From Buzgalin’s wiki article:

        “Представитель неомарксизма, известен своей концепцией «мутантного социализма» в СССР. Троцкистом определяет его доктор философских наук профессор В. А. Сапрыкин”

        Saprykin’s argument (for the sake of clarity):

        “Всё в духе одного из нынешних российских троцкистов А.В. Бузгалина. Это он советский социализм называет «мутантным». Ему «среди известных трактовок «реального социализма» (тоже в кавычках!) наиболее близка трактовка СССР как в определённой мере вырождающегося рабочего государства, предложенная Л. Троцким»”

        From Borish Yuljevich Kagarlitsky wiki article:

        “С 1977 — левый диссидент, участвовал в издании самиздатовских журналов «Варианты», «Левый поворот» (потом «Социализм и будущее»). В 1979 году стал кандидатом в члены КПСС. В 1980 году, после отлично сданного госэкзамена, был допрошен в КГБ и исключён из ГИТИСа и кандидатов в члены партии «за антиобщественную деятельность». Работал почтальоном.

        В апреле 1982 года арестован по «Делу молодых социалистов» и год с небольшим провёл в Лефортовской тюрьме по обвинению в антисоветской пропаганде. Давал откровенные показания и в результате «сотрудничества со следствием» в апреле 1983 года был освобождён в порядке помилования…

        Преподаватель [российско-британской] Московской высшей школы социальных и экономических наук”

        Also – a critique of his political views presents him as yet another Trot.

        “Charming” people. Both of them deserve to have Leningrad’s “Дорожная” played loud in their faces.

        Neither of them heads any political force, Grisha. I was asking not to name a handshakable socialists that up to your taste, but to name a political force in Russia that satisfies these 2 criterions. Try again, or just admit that there aint’ any.

        “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

        Prove it. Otherwise, it’s just a lame liberal slogan.

        “as demonstrated in your latest use of ad hominem attacks.”


        Grisha, should you or me remind to the commentariat here your stance on Crimea? Because, oh boy, I have done with what you call “ad hominem attacks” less to destroy your reputation as someone whose advice should be taken serious by any Russians, than you did with your own words.


      3. Buzgalin sounds okay to me, if a bit too eggheaded.

        Kagarlitsky, on the other hand, seemed like an odd case first. I listened to a lot of his shows, trying to figure him out. In the end, I got the impression that he’s a garden variety liberal. Pro-western liberal. Hatred of Putinism appears to be his main motivation.


      4. 2Mao

        “Buzgalin sounds okay to me, if a bit too eggheaded.

        Kagarlitsky, on the other hand, seemed like an odd case first…”


        “People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well – they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work”
        – Mao Tse Tung


      5. In “The Big Red Book of China” Jeff J Brown mentions that Stalin called the Chinese Communists ‘radishes’ – a very derogatory term used to infer “red on the outside but white on the inside”.

        Not that I agree with everything Jeff J Brown says, but I went fact checking …

        In the following article

        • How Mao Zedong Formed Communist China

        we see the paragraph

        “At the Potsdam Conference in July, Truman had urged Stalin to recognize the GMD as the government of China. Stalin had agreed readily, mocking the CCP as “a bunch of fascists.” At other times he called Chinese Communists “radishes”—red only on the outside. Stalin disdained them for their refusal to take instructions from Moscow. The only good Communist in Stalin’s world was one who defended Soviet interests.”

        What’s interesting about this passage is that it reveals that anyone who disagrees with the Jewish/Bolshevik version of ‘communism’ is automatically labelled a ‘fascist’. The point here is that terms like ‘fascism’ and ‘communism’ [and ‘socialism’ – and ‘totalitarianism’] depend on their circumstance and can mean anything, depending on who controls the narrative and who they want to demonise.


      6. “• How Mao Zedong Formed Communist China”

        is not a source. They don’t even provide a source for their quotes. Try again

        “[A]nyone who disagrees with the Jewish/Bolshevik version of ‘communism’ is automatically labelled a ‘fascist’. “

        Can you elaborate on the “Jewish/Bolshevik” part?


      7. @Julius: Agree with you that Stalin only approved of Communists who were completely loyal to him and would follow his instructions to the letter. Chinese Communists were never supposed to take charge of the government, they were always supposed to (in Stalin’s opinion) form a “Popular Front” and subordinate themselves to the “progressive” Chinese bourgeoisie.

        Disagree that Stalin could be classified as “Jewish/Bolshevik.”
        I mean, he was a Bolshevik, originally, that part is true.
        However, he wasn’t Jewish.
        Also, after Lenin’s death Djugashvili sort of went on a rampage against Old Bolsheviks, especially of the Jewish persuasion, and ended up purging most of them. For the same reason as above: He suspected them of not kissing his Gruzian tuchus arduously enough.
        Hence, not quite sure what you are getting at here with your “Jewish” allusion, hopefully not the combination of Lenin=Bolshevik=Jew=anti-Russia=bad, or whatever, as we see so often among the caveman anti-Communist faction (?)


      8. Yalensis, why are you lying? Just… why? You know that your own knowledge of history if sorely lacking, that in any serious debate with anyone more or less informed (let alone – with me) you gonna lose and expose glaring, gaping holes in your awkwardly crafted argument constructs.

        I ask again – why? Here you claim:

        “Chinese Communists were never supposed to take charge of the government, they were always supposed to (in Stalin’s opinion) form a “Popular Front” and subordinate themselves to the “progressive” Chinese bourgeoisie.”

        C’mon, yalensis – prove it. With quotes and sources and all that jazz. Show that you can deliver more than just edgy talk!

        “Also, after Lenin’s death Djugashvili sort of went on a rampage against Old Bolsheviks, especially of the Jewish persuasion”

        Once again – go and prove it. If you mean to reference 1937 Grand Trials, well, for one that’s 13 years after Lenin’s death – so much for “after Lenin’s death” being useful as some sort of argument. I’d also like to see any proof of Jewishness being some kind of super motivator for the “rampage” you mention here. What is more likely to be found out thought is the Big Numbers Principle ™ striking again. Meaning – if “x” (the Jews) form an inordinary big part of “X” (people who benefited and went far and wide in life after the October Revolution), then any action managing to investigate and hold “X” responsible for any abuses of power will undoubtedly had a lot of “x” in the crosshairs.


      9. Lyttenburgh, I appreciate your analysis, so sophisticated that it is based almost entirely upon Wikipedia and banal sloganeering aimed at demeaning two authoritative scholars.

        Patriotism involves concern for ordinary people rather than blind allegiance to the incumbent government. Yes, this principle has been misused in Russian liberal circles who often simply trash-talk Russia, but the basic assertion stands true. For Brits, there is nothing patriotic about sending their sons and daughters to fight useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would argue that the likes of politician Bernie Sanders and scholars Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are vastly more patriotic than any of their right-wing equivalents.

        There may well be a lack of powerful, patriotic dissident forces in Russia right now, but I think current conditions would deprive them of political oxygen. Currently, you seem to believe that the key to patriotism is whitewashing the historical record and contriving nonsensical pseudo-legal justifications for current policy.


      10. “Lyttenburgh, I appreciate your analysis, so sophisticated that it is based almost entirely upon Wikipedia and banal sloganeering aimed at demeaning two authoritative scholars.”

        I’m very charitable person, Grisha. Avarice, after all, is a mortal sin. So it’s okay for your to “borrow” a turn of phrase that I just applied to you. What is not okay, is how clumsy you apply back to me. I provided actual quotes, that could be sourced back to the originals stating facts about these 2 fine chaps illustrative episodes from their respective biographies. As for demeaning – it is said that “the truth is in the eye of the beholder”. Some people might find the facts that one of them is lily-livered Trot to be admirable. And there are others, I’m sure, who’d see Kagarlitsky work as seksot for the KGB as the ultimate fulfillment of one’s patriotic duty. BTW, I’ve been asking precisely about this kind of behaviour – patriotic. How do you think, Grisha, does Kagarlitsky still “knock” to his betters? His track record, littered with ruins of self-destruct political movements could be seen as a string of successes… for the state’s internal security. 😉

        “I would argue that the likes of politician Bernie Sanders and scholars Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are vastly more patriotic than any of their right-wing equivalents.”

        That’s 100% true! Bernie taking Boeing’s (you know – a pillar of the Murikin Military Industrial Complex) shilling, and Noam Chomsky’s participation in US military spy program while at MIT are all signs that even “lefties” in the end of the day, do their patriotic duty – for Murika and Apple pie! While those rightard could only wave flags and wear MAGA hats these two nerds made much, much more to keep their Hegemon of a country a top dog!

        “Patriotism involves concern for ordinary people rather than blind allegiance to the incumbent government.”

        Define patriotism then. Oh, and define “ordinary people” as well. What a liberal brainwashed by the Western bourgeois-democratic propaganda considers “patriotism” and why anyone in Russia should value your opinion?

        “There may well be a lack of powerful, patriotic dissident forces in Russia right now, but I think current conditions would deprive them of political oxygen”

        So, we went from you claiming: “There is a growing erosion of the concept of patriotic dissent and a growing convergence between support of the incumbent government and patriotism” (c), implying that jut recently the situation was the reverse (see your use of the phrase “growing erosion”). And now we’ve come to you admitting that they, your imaginary “patriotic dissidents”, could not have existed in Russia in the first place. AKA you were just whining about… nothing?

        “Currently, you seem to believe that the key to patriotism is whitewashing the historical record and contriving nonsensical pseudo-legal justifications for current policy.”

        BS. But I forgive your constant lying and putting words into my mouth, Grisha. How else you can engage in the dispute, if you are totally lacking in the facts department?

        P.S. Again, Grisha – you or me should go and remind all low and sundry on your “clever by half” position on Crimea?


      11. Lyttenburgh, your comments are, as per usual, full of intellectually shallow personal abuse and lacking in substance. I will not waste my time or yours in responding to any of the propagandistic points you make (you’ve gone as far as to compare another user to Streicher here. Are you a descendant of his by any chance?). On a serious note, you must stop making libellous statements about me in the public arena, particularly those relating to my position on Crimea, relevant international law and Russian domestic legislation on territorial integrity (the latter of which you have falsely and maliciously accused me of violating). Pursuant to article 128.1 of the Russian Criminal Code and the Defamation Act (2013), you are required to stop such behaviour.


    1. This is very, very interesting. Quite inspiring actually. … I could babble and babble. Focusing on Kohl makes a lot of sense. Concerning Schroeder, makes sense too to consider Putin the driving force. Good he was. I wondered if it was a strategy for his reelection, somehow. And I quite solid information about him when he was still the minister of Lower Saxony. Some of it I could observe myself during an event in Bruxelles. Brussels?

      Let me pick out this:
      The course of events in the former Yugoslavia had some very dangerous moments … but the end game, in which Serbia was bereft of its ancient Kosovo province, was anathema to Moscow, which has never recognized its legality.

      I do recall, I found it absolutely strange at the time that Milošević was targeted as nationalist for expressing Serbia’s deep cultural links to Kosovo via its Orthodox cultural heritage there. For Milošević it may well have been part of a political campaign. But so what? There is obviously both a historical and cultural connection.


      1. Milosevic gave that address at a gathering honoring the 600th anniversary of a famous Serb fought battle in Kosovo.

        In that speech, Milosevic also cherished the multiethnic component of Yugoslavia, while condemning ethnic nationalist terrorism. At the time, this was a problem in Kosovo c/o Albanian nationalists – something that was noted in Western mass media.

        For a variety of reasons, Western mass media and body politic at large was to downplay this reality.


      2. To return to our earlier topic meanderingly, and as always the nitwit in politics and geopolitics, curiously enough I wondered too at the time that behind KLA (UKA in my linguistic world) always somewhat seemed to lurk Greater Albania.

        I am getting old, but am I misguided that Stephen Karganovic’s headline changed? Seems I recall, it drew me closer initially. But I didn’t really have the time to dive into the context he unfolded before me. Then I used site search to discover that he actually read the same book as I did at the time I was puzzled about unfolding events.

        Am I hallucinating? The headline didn’t change?


  2. “Caveman nationalist” reminds me of a similar term that was inaccurately and somewhat underhandedly applied in at least one instance. A well deserved **** you to that source. I’ll leave it at that. My version of a samizdat communication.

    The erroneous claim on Putin is on par with a recent BBC segment I mentioned, where James Coomarasamy let a Russian “liberal” airhead liken Putin to Hitler with no follow-up, much unlike when Coomarasamy pounced on Sergey Markov in the same segment.

    Without knowing for sure, I suspect the % of people calling themselves ethnic Russians while being of other backgrounds is high. Many in this grouping don’t hide that aspect of their background. For good and bad, Russia has been governed by people with non-Russian backgrounds.

    The claim of Russians being (generally speaking) bigots is nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Yes, advocates of national (i.e. country’s) interests and advocates of ethnocentric chauvinism both called ‘nationalists’. Actual meanings are often the opposite. Linguistic problem, convenient for propaganda purposes.


  4. Russia became an empire over its thousand of years history of expansion and as such ended up with many ethnic people who were “Russified”. Who lived in the empire then in The Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation.

    Putin should not have to emphasise this reality.

    Nationalism breaks up countries – look at here in Britain with Scotland’s party the SNP trying to break away and join the EU.

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. This is a heavily subsidised part of Britain and yet nationalism took root and will have to be fought.

    Look what Ukrainian nationalism is doing in that country, driving it towards its ruin.

    USA \ NATO use nationalism to break up countries look at the use of the Kurds in Middle East.


    1. I would merge the last two sentences – you don’t think Nuland, McCain, Graham, Biden et al were promoting Nationalism, surely?! USA/UKNATO are suddenly concerned about Ukraine’s ‘sovereignty’ in their push to bring it into the NATO fold.


  5. In “Russian Populist: The Political Thought of Vladimir Putin”, Matthew Raphael Johnson emphasises the following points in terms of President Putin’s political thought.

    1. Nationalism – eliminate all debt and outlaw the IMF and all oligarchs – most moved along with their money to either the USA, Britain or Israel.

    2. [Traditional] family as the basis of a cohesive, stable and prosperous society. [He is no fan of Elton John.]

    3. Modernisation to be handled carefully

    4. The middle class remains the centre of national regeneration – not the state – [but within state guidelines].

    5. Promotion of physical and mental health of the broad population. {Putin sets a prime example]

    6. Promotion of concept of responsibility – freedom exists only within responsibility and virtue. “Freedom and virtue are two side of the same coin”.
    Johnson writes: “Those who advocate war should be held responsible. Those who demanded privatisation of Russia in the 1990 and implemented the practice should be held responsible [think of the likes of Browder, Khodorkovsky et al] – they have not been.”


  6. To continue from here. A case study of how agitprop works – starring our gracious Host, Professor Robinson.

    Like said above, agitprop aims to create an all-pervading “atmosphere”, in this case – a wholesome worldview of its own making. This newly imposed worldview, as a component of the “Twillight Struggle” ™ between the West and Russia, tries to convince the enemy party (that’s Russia here) that resistance is futile, don’t even try to do something against us – simply surrender. Now, if you remember, back in August 2020 there out of the blue appeared a throng of articles unanimous in their “prediction” that “Lukashenko is finished” (c) and “Kremlin should not intervene… or else!” (c). There are too many of them to list them all, but they are very, very similar – who read one gets the picture of all possible arguments of the Side of Good and Democracy. So as the example will suffice this one by a child-prodigy of the paperclipped Ustashes “devoted anti-communists” and Cold Warrior extraordinaire Stephen Sestanovich, regarded by cerain Blob-bing circles as an “expert” on Russia.

    Just one quote, to bring a sense of cheer and good merriment to y’all:

    As members of the elite are pushed to abandon the regime, they may have to advocate solutions, such as early elections rather than a managed transition, that Moscow could consider riskier. The longer Putin waits before giving up on Lukashenko, the greater the chance that the color revolution train will already have left the station.

    Putin’s advisors are surely telling him all this. Some European leaders—perhaps even U.S. officials—may be saying the same, too. Dumping Lukashenko now is the only good move the Kremlin has left

    Now, let me remind what our dear Professor wrote on the same subject back in the day:

    “Should Lukashenko fall, Russia will find itself in a similarly embarrassing situation. Thus, there are advantages to be had in keeping options open and in maintaining good relations with Belarus’ opposition.

    … [H]owever, Moscow still needs to consider what it will do once Lukashenko leaves office, as he eventually must. The short term advantage of standing by his side must be measured against the long term advantages of fostering good relations with the Belarusian people, as well as against the need to protect Russia’s commercial and strategic interests. For now, the preference for stability is winning out. It remains to be seen whether events will justify that choice.”

    Wow! “Hedge the bets” by not supporting Lukashenko and establishing a channel with Tikhanovskaya. All in the name of “Russia’s national interests”. Roight. What, ah, striking similarity, innit? The, ahem, “tradecraft” shows.

    Meanwhile in the real world:
    – Foreign Policy: Tikhanovskaya admits self-defeating opposition strategy of promising to punish all “Regime” elites contributing to the ultimate failure of the protests.

    [Notice the wording in the intro – reading it one might imagine, that “embattled” Lukashenko is barely “clinging to his power” and just one strong push needed to topple the “Regime”. That’s how propaganda ALWAYS works]

    – Le Temps: “We have lost” – Tikhanovskaya admits opposition’s losing the streets.


    Soooooo… Next time our gracious Host the Professor would make a blogpost striving to boil down yet another psy-op by his Fatherland’s agents as a “nothingburger”… or, alternatively, when he would voice his devotion to the official party line of the Official West as pertaining to the malignancy performed worldwide by these dreadful Russian agents of the “former KGB” (c)… you all ought to smile and say: “Oh, you rascal!” 😉


  7. “We may be a multiethnic country, but we are one civilization”

    • Putin on Immigration – “Russia is for Russians”

    “One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.”

    This is an extract from:
    • President Vladimir Putin at the 10th anniversary meeting of Valdai International Discussion Club in the Novgorod Region, September 19, 2013.

    That sentence was prefaced with:

    “Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values.


    1. Userperson Julius Skoolafish, why are you lying?

      “Putin on Immigration – “Russia is for Russians””

      What he actually said:

      “When we talk about immigration, i.e. about foreign citizens, we are talking primarily about those from the former Soviet republics. Even though younger generations may not necessary speak Russian well, but somebody in the family does. There is a common mentalitet that has been preserved…

      But we too must be more aim-focused in our immigration policies, we must be able to prepare them more [for life in Russia]. We talk about this but we haven’t been able to get it right yet; we should have Russian language courses available in these former republics, Russian history courses, even from school age, we should be preparing people to better understand one another. But even so, we must instill in our new citizens or those who would like to become Russia’s citizen, a sense of responsibility. We must instill in them an understanding that they have now come to another country and they must follow our traditions and our laws, they must respect our culture and our history…

      When it comes to internal migration – it’s not simple here either… But, I do repeat that we have advantages in our immigration sphere – we may be a multiethnic people, but we are the same civilization.

      This is followed by a question posed by an ethnic Serbian RT journalist that still can’t get Russian citizenship, where she asks could the process of obtaining said citizenship be speed up, and brings about the example of relative easy way how one becomes a citizen of the Western country. To which Putin replies:

      “We are going to act very carefully, first and foremost looking after the interests of the native population of the Russian Federations. We are first and foremost a Russian state, 85% of our population identifies as Russians, and there are other peoples who are much more closer to us compared to those, who live outside of Russia’s borders. These are our native people, our ethnic minorities, we have many of those, over 120 ethnicities… But you said you’ve lived here for 11 years? And you need 6 years to get citizenship… You should have given your papers long ago…

      [I] think you are right, in specific cases we must correct our policies in this direction. We want to attract qualified and valuable people into various spheres of activity… A very good example of a country that has entire programs for attracting qualified personnel is Canada. Our legislation has been “ossified” a bit as of right now, but we have ideas and we have improvements in this area, especially when it comes to attracting those from the former Soviet republics. We are making it easier for them to obtain Russian citizenship – if they meet certain criteria. But overall, of course, our immigration policy must be flexible – the one that, without doubt, pursues the interests of our native citizens, but also still flexible enough to attract the right kind (at least for the labour market) of people.

      In short, nothing even close to your “Russia for Russians”. Again, why did you lie?

      Methinks that you, userperson Julius “Streicher ” Skoolafish is just a garden variety of ordinary, commonplace rightard, flushed away from your usual haunts by the post “6 Jan” purges of the ‘Murikin Adorables. So, you and the likes of you are seeking a new safe harbour. That’s why you came here and engages in low-brow dodgy propaganda.

      Oh, I’m so looking forward to see more of you commentary! 😉

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I don’t mean to be condescending – that’s “t-a-l-k-i-n-g d-o-w-n t-o s-o-m-e-o-n-e” – but why does the slightest hint of oxygen or truth send you into such a maniacal tirade?
        I don’t know what you have got against Putin and Russia but in good faith, I merely shared a video of Putin speaking very sensibly and thoughtfully about immigration for all to watch. To maintain integrity – that’s “being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values” – I bulleted the actual title of the video as posted and translated by Inessa S – and note her use of “quotation marks”.
        But thanks anyway for the transcript.
        Oh wait – I think I see what got you in such a frenzied lather.
        • Putin: Soviet Government Was Mostly Jewish 80-85 %

        Now you really need to ooze back into your comfortable environment and get another fix of that brain hormone.

        Incidentally, here is more from President Putin

        [That video has been taken down – nevertheless I had downloaded it along with the full transcript .. you should be able to find it still in Russian and perhaps provide a full transcript.]
        Putin: “I think that history is something that should be looked on as something that occurred in the past. We can’t erase our history. If you’re interested in how I regard this person [Ulyanov – who called himself Lenin] and the doctrine he represented, I would say that … there was a period in my life when I was interested in Marxism-Leninism, read a lot with keen interest, found that reading curious, often logical … as we all did. – Yes, as we all did. But for me I can say, as I grew older, the truth became more and more apparent that all of it was nothing but a beautiful, yet pernicious fairy tale. Pernicious because its … implementation; the efforts to achieve it in our country caused enormous harm.
        … the other [thing] is they destroyed what united people of the civilized world.
        The only thing they did to keep the country together within common borders was use barbed wire.“
        Putin’s response 11 years later: “I have practically nothing more to add. I am ready to repeat it word for word.“

        Also from President Putin:
        “You know, we have a really dark time in our country’s history, at the beginning of the Soviet era, where many believers were killed – not only Christian Orthodox, but also Muslims and representatives of other religions. The Soviet state, in its early stage, was very cruel to religious authorities. Many of our Churches were completely destroyed, our traditional religions denominations suffered massively.
        But the role of the State is to protect the people “
        President Putin

        President Putin again on a related topic …
        • Putin Trashes Marx and Lenin: Practice Has Shown That Marxism Was Wrong, Family Matters!

        No wonder you hate him.
        Looking forward to exchanging thoughts on more of those lies you hold onto so dearly. As in an elementary school test, here are a couple of easy ones to start with:
        1. Did Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction?
        2. a) Was Nayirah truthful about babies being taken out of incubators in Kuwait?
        b) Who exactly was Nayirah?.
        3. Did WT7 collapse due to ‘office fires’?
        They do get harder …
        Don’t forget that brain hormone fix – you sound a bit fragile.


      2. “but why does the slightest hint of oxygen or truth send you into such a maniacal tirade?”

        Good thing there is no hint of truth in *your* original commentary, then – for I responded in very calm, fact based manner, by presenting everyone with the translation of what Putin said 🙂

        See, herr Streicher – I’m a Russian, born, raised, and resident from my entire life. Trying to explain to *me* of all people what are Putin’s speeches are all about… that’s funny! 🙂

        “I merely shared a video of Putin speaking very sensibly and thoughtfully about immigration for all to watch.”

        Splendid! And I merely pointed out that you drew a faulty lesson from this video, either misunderstanding or misinterpreting what Putin said. Either way, you lied (aka provided false statement) either deliberately or out of sheer ignorance multiplied by not insignificant ideological bias. When I asked “why are you lying?” I mean to determine whether it’s former or the latter.

        You can’t help but lie repeatedly, do you, herr Streicher? E.g.:

        “Putin: Soviet Government Was Mostly Jewish 80-85 %”

        What he’s actually saying: “The decision to nationalize Schneerson library has been made by the first Soviet cabinet of ministers (SovNarCom) of the USSR”. It’s clearly, that he is not talking by the “Soviet Government” in general and perpetuity, but about particular one defined by time and space, namely – the one existing from 26 Oct. 1917 to late 1922.

        That’s an old speech by Putin, that raised quite a stir back then. Why? Because it is factual wrong – Jews comprised not 80-85% of that cabinet, but only 8% in 1917-18 period (1 out of 16 – Trotsky), or 12% in 1918-22 period (6 out of 50). Because Putin speaks about early period, the ethnic composition of that cabinet was: 15 Russians (including “Malorussians”), 1 Jew, 1 Pole, 1 Osetian.

        Now, in the Central Committee of the RSDRP(b) prior to October 1917 there were 20% Jews (6 out of 30). Either way, not even close to 80-85%.

        “No wonder you hate him.”



        You, Streicher… you are funny!

        “1. Did Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction?
        2. a) Was Nayirah truthful about babies being taken out of incubators in Kuwait?
        b) Who exactly was Nayirah?.
        3. Did WT7 collapse due to ‘office fires’?
        They do get harder …”

        1. Nope.
        2. A) Nope. B) Dummy.
        3. […] Oh. OOOOOOH! You are ONE OF THOSE! Not just a covidiot.

        P.S. Did you “like” my post above genuinely or accidently/out of sheer stupidity and not knowing how to operate the Internet?


  8. “The state language of the Russian Federation on all its territory is the Russian language, as the language of the state-forming people.

    That’s in keeping with the concept of ethnic Russians being the titular nation of the Russian Federation.
    I like to point that out, only because saying the word titular always makes me giggle.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. As a follow-up, the name Fatima Dudieva doesn’t comes across as being one with ethnic Ossetian ties. Offhand, it comes across to me as being perhaps Chechen or Ingush. According to one cyber source, she’s Dagestani Avar.

      The RT article describes her as an Ossetian. More accurately put, she’s apparently an Ossetian born non-ethnic Ossetian.

      America isn’t the only melting pot. A pointed reminder of an absurd Western mass media article claiming that Russia’s last men’s World Cup football (soccer) team wasn’t an ethnically diverse one.


  9. I humbly ask our most gracious host owner and proprietor of the blog “Irrussionality” Prof. Paul Robinson to release my topmost comment, currently “accidentally” (but in the spirit of, ah, “deconfliction”) stuck in the filter.

    As for the rest – and to make this comment worthwhile above it’s stated immediate purpose – I’d like to say a couple of words about the very Russian semi-slang turn of phrase, that prompted the name of this blogpost – “пещерный” (“caveman like”). Most often it is used in such now standard phrase – “пещерный антисемитизм” (“caveman like anti-Semitism”), where “caveman like” = “primeval”, “most primitive”, “troglodyte like”. Because, seriously, otherwise it sound oxymoronic… right?

    Wroooong 🙂

    Most recent mitochondrial DNA analysis of Ötzi remains (aka the “Tyrolean Iceman”) show, that late “Ötzi„ (besides being a murder victim) had been a bearer of the markers from the haplogroup, also typical for about 50% of Ashkenazi Jews. So, yeah – a real case of “cavemen anti-Semitism” caused his death at the heights of 3 km up in the Alps! 🙂


      1. Just to be clear, Professor – comments by others (especially in this particular comment section) are NOT trash?

        If not, then why did you “repressed” and “canceled” Russia Insider and Col (ret) Lang’s blog? Birds of the flock and all that jazz!


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s