Honestly, it It’s hard for me to believe this guy is white (ie Gentile European). He keeps up the oppressive-European shtick, quite a bit doesn’t he? — historical realities aside.

So, if we date Western Civ back to the greeks, circa 500BC, in the course of that 2500 years or so, Europe (ie White people) culturally dominated in a traditional ethnically chauvinistic way for maybe 300 years (say, 1650 -1950). This is of course a Christian thing, since the Arabs didn’t jihad and occupy much of Europe and north Africa, engage extensive European and African slave trade, an otherwise imperialize from the 600-1300, Nor did the turks, when taking over power in the region do the same thing from 1300-1700, conquering much of South Asia and Eastern Europe. Nor did Japan attempt to set up a Co-prosperity zone — because it was a peaceful non-Abrahamic country — that just wanted to sing and dance. Nor did the Monguls conquer and control the Han Chinese, setting up the Yaun dynasty and attempt to invade Japan, or the Manchu later control the Han under the Qing dynasty setting up an ethnic aparthied —

We can go on an on about what did not happen for Conrigs view to make sense, but it takes a lot of historical editing — Just like the supposed historic Hispanic discrimination, among other things,

But of course that is what you get from his type.

Like fanatical liberalism?

Russian nationalism is predicated upon a unique sense of cultural identity, and thus it resists conforming to outside norms, whether they are Europe’s, or Asia’s, or anyone else’s. It’s one of the reasons communism was able to take hold there first – it sees itself a vanguard of a unique historical culture, and has endless fantasies of political, cultural, and economic domination. That’s how it got to be such a huge empire to begin with. And in that sense, it’s entirely “white”, in that what defines European political culture is not “democracy”, but the desire to dominate other people and impose their political culture upon others. As you mention, if Russia’s culture were democratic, and Europe authoritarian, the same problems would exist, because each would still be trying to impose their culture on others as a means of extending their own imperial power. This is of course an outgrowth of the Christian faith that has dominated the cultural history of both. Other, non-Abrahamic faiths that established empires did not much care about exporting their political culture, evangelical-style, to their dominated holdings. The only reason James doesn’t ascribe liberal disappointment in Russia to religion, rather than race, is that this impulse is so universalized in European and Russian culture that it no longer is tied to religion itself. Even secularists in these cultures retain the poltiical evangelicalism of their religious forebears.

While I think this is true to knee-jerk DeMint style “tent-of-freedom” type people, I can’t think of a serious human rights or civil rights group that doesn’t acknowledge the strong role of substantive due process and an independent judiciary, the two most maligned anti-democratic elements of our system, in the formation of a state that doesn’t run roughshod over people who aren’t a statistical majority. If some people don’t explicitly say that when they mention other countries in regards to democracy, it is because people seem to presume that sort of ground work will spring up.