Putin confounds admirers and critics by his bizarre but diplomatic rapport with Israel whilst endorsing much that Israel regards as an abomination.
The Russian president rebukes Jews for their principal role in the Bolshevik overthrow of Imperial Russia, he honours the martyrdom of the Romanov dynasty (The Slaughter of a Dynasty https://amzn.to/2ApoUPW) and encourages the building of memorials to those martyred by the Bolsheviks.
He promotes Christianity, family, and nationalism. Until Putin, this sort of governance was exclusively National Socialist and Fascist.
Putin greatly admires Ivan Ilyin (1883 – 1954), an influential nationalist and Orthodox Christian philosopher active in the Russian Émigré movement in Europe after the American backed seizure (1917 – 1922) of Imperial Russia. Trotsky’s White Negroes https://amzn.to/2IodMeT).
The Russian president sponsors the memory of this great Russian philosopher who says that National Socialism was healthy, necessary and unavoidable’ it was a natural reaction to Bolshevism that will return in times of upheaval.
The great writer, philosopher, and Gulag survivor Alexander Solzhenitsyn, shunned by western media but sponsored by Putin, also honoured Ivan Ilyin.
Putin personally supported repatriating the anti-Bolshevik’s remains to Russia in 2009 and attended the consecration of the writer’s grave. Western media remained tight-lipped but they would have been aware of the significance of this poignant return of an anti-Bolshevik to a Bolshevik-free motherland.
In this 1948 essay, Ilyin analyses differing forms of rule that takes into account a nation’s history, culture, temperament, and geographic setting. Ilyin advocates a position wholly unrecognized by the modern Western concept of universal liberal democracy. A fervent ethno-nationalist, Ilyin believes in the amicable separation of sovereign nations in a way that reflects the sameness of its inhabitants.
The Russian philosopher believes Fascism is a complex phenomenon: it is multifaceted and historically speaking, far from exhausted. His findings support the thesis that Fascism and National Socialism arose as a reaction to Bolshevism, as a concentration of power guarding sovereignty from the Right perspective.
“As leftist chaos and totalitarianism advanced, this was a healthy phenomenon, as well as necessary and unavoidable. And such a concentration will come about henceforth, even in the most democratic states.
“In their hour of national danger, the more vigorous forces of the people will always rally to the defence of sovereignty. Thus it was in ancient Rome and the new Europe, and so it shall be hereafter.
Standing against leftist totalitarianism, Fascism was correct, as it sought just socio-political reform. This quest could be successful or unsuccessful: solving such problems is difficult, and first attempts might not have made any headway. Fascism was right since it derived from a healthy national-patriotic sensibility, without which a people can neither lay claim to its existence nor create a unique culture.”
The philosopher is not unstinting in his praise of National Socialism but the aspects of Fascism that he says are in need of reforming did not exist except in the Soviet version of history. Therefore, before a failing can be corrected there needs to be a fault in the first place.
Suffice to say that the Russian president’s endorsement of a great Russian figure who says Hitler, National Socialism and Fascism, Salazar (Portugal) and Franco (Spain) were right and will return at times of distress will be noted by others on the world stage.
Source: The ethnic-european