Vladimir Putin has two distinguishing characteristics that our North American leaders possess in small measure: A backbone and principles. But where does Putin get his strength from? We’ll return to that question later. What I find admirable about the Russian Leader is his clarity of vision. Pat Buchanan analyzes Putin’s socio/cultural views here.
Putin supposedly said that Russia doesn’t need minorities but some skeptics believe that this incident was fabricated and that he never spoke those words. We can be confident, however, that he said that Russia needed to be defended from “aggressive” minorities. Personally I think Putin is spot on here. Minorities need to handled with care and in best case scenarios they can be apolitical and economically prosperous (Parsis of India), or worse, a parasitic and subversive threat (Jews and Brahmins). But mostly they are a damned nuisance (North African and Arab Muslims in Europe/unskilled illegal Mexicans in the US). Minorities will always appear “aggressive” due to their tribal instincts which stem from feelings of isolation. At best these minorities can assimilate into and identify with the nationalism of the majority or in worst case scenarios they can pursue their own tribal interests at the expense of the majority.
On traditional values and tolerance
It would be an understatement to say that Putin believes that traditional values are a prerequisite to a healthy society. However he goes so far as to say that the promotion of destructive values is being enforced from the top, ie elites. Putin believes that this process is undemocratic and nobody in good conscience could disagree with such as assessment. When we observe our universities and media churn out liberal and cultural Marxist propaganda, we must ask ourselves whose interests they serve. The media is supposed to represent the views and trends of society, not manufacture trends for mass consumption. In India, for example, the somewhat liberal TV soaps of the 90s were followed by a resurgence of culturally conservative programming spearheaded by Ekta Kapoor. India is a deeply conservative nation and this is rightly reflected in their entertainment.
What about our entertainment? According to a poll in 2006 (I couldn’t find a more recent one) 60% of Americans believed that Hollywood’s values are not in line with the rest of America. Hardly surprising when one considers that Hollywood is dominated by a minority bent on pursuing their own tribal interests. Homosexuality is likewise forced down our throats by the media which portrays gays as flamboyant, fashionable, and chic. In reality, however, nearly half of Americans think that homosexuality is a sin. Putin was right to use the term “undemocratic.”
Some critics believe that Putin is a political opportunist that panders to the prejudices of his conservative support base (80% of Russians are baptized orthodox). But even if this is so, it hardly discredits Putin as his policies still represent the views of the Russian masses. Here in North America, our leaders fail miserably in this regard. The conservative government of Stephen Harper has flushed millions of dollars down the toilet by funding feminist initiatives and programs. You can read about this here and here. These programs further women’s interests at the expense of society behind the facade of “equality”. Where does Harper get of calling himself a conservative?
To turn to our earlier question: Where does Putin get his strength from? He gets it from the legitimacy conferred onto him by the masses he faithfully represents.