The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 John Derbyshire ArchiveBlogview
A Modest Proposal: Invite Russian Ambassador to Cabinet Meetings—Drive Opposition Party Mad(Der)!
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
161213162857-donald-trump-cabinet-large-169
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

President Trump on Tuesday gave a one-hour speech to a joint session of Congress. There was some cucking, about Black History Month, a licensed occasion for the ramping-up of anti-white rhetoric—if your gonads were as dimensionally impressive as we were led to believe, Mr. President, you would have issued an Executive Order renaming February as “Hate Whitey Month“—and condemning “hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms,” with special reference to the recent vandalizing of Jewish cemeteries. (Fiddlesticks to that. Saying “hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms” is just conceding rhetorical ground to the enemy. Spokes-critters at the Southern Poverty Law Center and other Goodwhite propaganda outlets have made the word “hate” toxic by using it indiscriminately to refer to any position contradicting CultMarx dogma. Most “hate crimes” turn out to be hoaxes—as has proved to be the case here).

But there was some good stuff on the National Question. Most resounding quote:

Free nations are the best vehicle for expressing the will of the people, and America respects the right of all nations to chart their own path. My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America.

In 1939, Orwell wrote “we have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” It is once again, and we should thank the President for thus showing us his intelligence.

Just those three frank sentences reminded me why I voted for this guy, and shall vote for him again.

And there was this:

We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two world wars, that dethroned fascism … [Applause] … and a Cold War and defeated communism.

Those were indeed noble deeds, bravely done. But the dethroning of fascism took place 72 years ago; the defeat of communism, at least of Soviet communism, was accomplished 26 years ago. Why is NATO still around?

If the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious, the second duty is to question what goes unquestioned. The President, to his credit, wants our NATO partners to do more to finance the alliance. That’s good; but why does the alliance even exist? Who’s the enemy?

We’re supposed to think it’s Russia, but I can’t figure out why. I keep asking, and Radio Derb listeners have been energetic in offering explanations, but nothing seems right.

I’m getting the feeling, in fact, that the current wave of Russophobia has been manufactured out of whole cloth as a stick to beat the Trump administration with. No, wait a minute … sticks aren’t made out of cloth … oh, you know what I mean.

I got a chuckle from Steve Sailer’s blog posting a video of Charles (Bell Curve) Murray being shouted down at Middlebury College. The demonstrators were chanting: “Racist, sexist, anti-gay—Charles Murray, go away!”

One of Steve’s commenters asked why they were accusing Murray of being anti-gay, when he’d come out in favor of same-sex marriage at CPAC four years ago. A different commenter replied to that: “Because it rhymes with ‘go away.’”

I think that nicely encapsulates the vacuity of Social Justice Warrior reasoning. Perhaps it also applies to the Russophobia panic.

Why are we all supposed to be against Russia? Because it rhymes with … I don’t know … “Prussia“? “Flusher”? “Gonna crush ya”?

ORDER IT NOW

Latest target of the Russophobes: Attorney General Jeff Sessions. At confirmation hearings for the Attorney General job in January, Minnesota Senator Al Franken asked Sessions what he would do if evidence came out that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign had communicated with the Russian government in the course of the campaign. Sessions replied that he didn’t know of such things, and that “I didn’t have communications with the Russians.” [Live coverage of Sessions confirmation hearing, By Jonathan Easley and Lydia Wheeler, The Hill, Jamuary 10, 2017]

Wednesday this week, however, the Washington Post reported that Sessions had spoken to the Russian ambassador twice during the campaign. [Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose, By Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller March 1, 2017]

That unleashed a storm of pointing and sputtering among the anti-Trump legions. They just can’t understand how Trump got elected when they are so obviously Good People and Trump is so plainly a Bad Person. As always in psychological crises of this sort, magical thinking takes over. There were secret conspiracies, invisible forces, poisonous vapors. The malevolent agency in this case was…Russia! Because it rhymes with “fussier”…or something.

Being obliged to exchange occasional pleasantries with the Russian ambassador is surely an occupational hazard for United States Senators. Probably Jeff Sessions, replying to Franken, assumed that such hallway encounters didn’t rise to the level of “communicating with the Russian government” in the context of campaign shenanigans. And I think his assumption was a fair one.

The opposition is making hay with it none the less. Sessions has recused himself from Justice Department investigations into Russian interference in the election.

I’d say he’s done himself a favor there, saved himself wasting a lot of time that he could much more profitably devote to reversing the anti-cop, anti-white, Open-Borders mindset that settled in at the Justice Department under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

Meanwhile, here’s a modest proposal for the President. Sir, why not stick a big fat finger in the eye of the Russophobes with an Executive Order announcing that from henceforth, the Russian ambassador will be an honored guest at all cabinet meetings.

Does anyone think that would make one iota of difference to our national security and prosperity?

I don’t.

What it would do is drive the Opposition Party over the edge from their present merely unbalanced state into screeching, grass-eating, poop-throwing, running-through-the-park-naked insanity.

Which would be great fun to watch.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Donald Trump, Russia, VDare Archives 
    []
  1. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Even better would be to get hot Russian blondes in tight dresses to act as waitresses / receptionists / hostesses during cabinet meetings. MSM yentas rage – nuclear!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jderbyshire/a-modest-proposal-invite-russian-ambassador-to-cabinet-meetings-drive-opposition-party-madder/#comment-1788576
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Stogumber says:

    Wonderful. I, too, thought: Now it is time to double down on the Russian connexion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    Even before you refuse to apologize to a leftist you make clear you do not accept their premises at all.
    The response should have been hell yeah we talked to russia, the deep state and obama and clinton were attempting to start world war three over pussy riot and we ran as an anti war party and we assured russia that there would be a new foreign party in a few months and to please not take the provocations to war of the globalists to seriously

    and it is treason to attempt to interfere with the administration of a duly elected president, the very existence of a deep state in the united states,let alone it's interference in politics, let alone its willingness to openly defy an elected president is exactly what the legacy memory of soviet tactics ought to evoke, its worth noting how ironic it is that todays communists are using the memory of yesterdays communists to further their ambitions having lost their influence in both russia and america
  3. As a complete pest in the Tweet-o -rama world I’ve been annoying Democrat brass with the following:

    Will a major player from the out group please publicly visit POTUS before this split widens completely?Jimmy Carter?Jerry Brown?
    or
    As a major out group member please consider a public visit to POTUS to heal rift in DC before it widens more.

    To the rest of Tweet Land these gems:

    Tweet prominent democrats to publicly visit President Trump to heal the DC rift. Jerry Brown?Chris Dodd?Joe Lieberman?Jimmy Carter?
    or
    Urge major democrat to publicly visit President Trump to help heal rifts in DC. Jimmy Carter?Jerry Brown?Cris Dodd?Joe Lieberman ?

    Not as annoying as the Rooskie visit, but who knows.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
  4. From a geostrategic perspective might not ‘The current wave of Russophobia have been manufactured’ out of fear of OBOR?

    There’s not a snowflake’s chance in hell of any Western force actually fighting Russia and surviving.

    But if the Russo-European border softens, the next thing you know there’ll kumbaya between Beijing and Berlin as everyone races to develop the last frontier on the Eurasian continent. 1,000 freight trains will make that run in 2017 and work has started on both the Moscow-Kazan HSR leg and on the Xinjiang leg.

    All very well and good for those devious, shifty-eyed Eurasians, but it makes Splendid Isolation look like a liability, not an asset.

    Read More
  5. Bad idea, to allow a representative of the Russian government to attend cabinet meetings. Also, any other ideas to openly inculcate Russian government officials into any aspect of Trump’s developing Administration will be equally as bad. And, that’s especially so if the intent is to stick one’s thumb in the eye of the Russophobic opposition.

    Why?

    We’ll obviously it’s unnecessary to take such actions which might be seen as piling on as the Left and the Deep State are already quite clearly overplaying their Red-baiting hand on this. It’s best to just let them overreact and be satisfied with them downing their own agendas without help from the Administration.

    Overreaction encourages suspicion and a search for ulterior motives. And, by nature, the American public is a suspicious lot.

    Let’s, instead, pray for continued bad acting on the part of Trump’s opponents. Let them do themselves in.

    LF

    Read More
  6. I wonder if the whole Russia flap is just a coverup on the FISA court application to spy on the Trump campaign. As in: See! We knew there was a Russian connection, and we were right!

    Read More
  7. David says:

    Trump should squeeze Alicia Mercado into the cabinet also to balance things out.

    Read More
  8. The demonstrators were chanting: “Racist, sexist, anti-gay—Charles Murray, go away!”

    I haven’t heard the tune behind this chant, Mr. Derbyshire, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that this is a new chant.

    If it’s a new one, it’s about damn time! It’s 50-odd years later, and we still gotta put up with this “Hey hey, ho, ho, something-or-other has got to go!” It’s just getting old, is all. Listen, radical protesters, hear me now or believe me later: “I don’t care what your cause is, whether it’s just or not, just get some damn new chants already, or I’m not coming out to get tear gassed ever again.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Winston Churchill was great supporter of using mustard gas (on Kurds and Russians).
    , @TomSchmidt
    "hear me now or believe me later"

    I miss that skit.
  9. Sean says:

    Here is why Russia and the US cannot be friends:-

    1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinglak,.
    2) Nation states exist, presumably because

    John Mearsheimer : “great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.[27]” Accordingly, offensive neorealists such as Mearsheimer believe that a state’s best strategy to increase its relative power to the point of achieving hegemony is to rely on offensive tactics. Provided that it is rational for them to act aggressively, great powers will likely pursue expansionist policies, which will bring them closer to hegemony. Since global hegemony is nearly impossible to attain due to the constraints of power projection across oceans and retaliation forces, the best end game status states can hope to reach is that of a regional hegemon dominating its own geographical area.[28][29] This relentless quest for power inherently generates a state of “constant security competition, with the possibility of war always in the background”.[30] Only once regional hegemony is attained do great powers become status quo states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    The United States has been a regional hegemon since at least 1898 and probably earlier. It seems to me that what the (at least the neocon) leadership seeks is global hegemony. Going down that path will lead ultimately to some kind of disaster.

    Not all leaders seek even regional hegemony. Otto von Bismarck was quite content with a (largely) united Germany and didn't seek to conquer France, Austria-Hungary or Russia.
    , @anon
    John Mearsheimer is also a NATO skeptic. Along with being a 'realist' he is also big on making a distinction between strategic territory and the non strategic. And most of the World is non strategic.

    The thing that would really threaten Russia is abandoning NATO. The Germans would need nukes. And the US might talk a good game, but the Germans have proven themselves more than once to be serious threats.

    Plus, we disarmed Europe. By demanding 2% NATO defense spending, everyone decided to free ride and cheat. And hence is lightly armed for anything plausibly offensive. There is probably enough stuff around to throw together enough to play defense for a while.

    Maybe Cold War 2 is as good as it gets. If it has to be something, this is a pseudo conflict, with nothing to fight over and plenty of reasons *not* to pursue it with any energy. Putin never had it so good, either. If it will keep our deep state and Putin happy, I suppose I'll hate Russia. The Commies were much better enemies. They were believable enough to create modest political unity in the US.
  10. Sean says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The demonstrators were chanting: “Racist, sexist, anti-gay—Charles Murray, go away!”
     
    I haven't heard the tune behind this chant, Mr. Derbyshire, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that this is a new chant.

    If it's a new one, it's about damn time! It's 50-odd years later, and we still gotta put up with this "Hey hey, ho, ho, something-or-other has got to go!" It's just getting old, is all. Listen, radical protesters, hear me now or believe me later: "I don't care what your cause is, whether it's just or not, just get some damn new chants already, or I'm not coming out to get tear gassed ever again."

    Winston Churchill was great supporter of using mustard gas (on Kurds and Russians).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Sean, mustard gas is serious deadly stuff that kills. Tear gas is not nearly on that level.
  11. Cyrano says:

    We are all equal “generosity” by the Americans applies only to those who are not equal. To show same generosity to someone who actually might be equal to them in any way imaginable (the Russians) might be anathema to their beliefs. Russian ambassador in their opinion comes from a nation that’s genetically and democratically inferior. BTW has anyone ever made the connection: Exceptional nation = Ubermensch = Chosen people? They all talk about the same thing.

    Read More
  12. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Hey Derb, don’t feel sorry for that Burkittsville Bitch, Charles Murray. Did you get a load of what that pathetic old man had to say about the incident?

    From @AnnCoulter:

    Does @charlesmurray have even 1/2 a testicle left?
    WAPO: Murray blames Trump for Middlebury tantrum:
    I “sympathize.” wapo.st/2maWnJP

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/grade-point/wp/2017/03/04/a-conservative-author-tried-to-speak-at-a-liberal-college-he-left-fleeing-an-angry-mob/

    Read More
  13. BenKenobi says:

    In 1939, Orwell wrote…

    If Orwell had felt we sunk to such depths in nineteen thirty nine imagine what he would think now.

    It’s too bad we can’t generate electricity from people spinning in their graves. Talk about green energy!

    Read More
  14. inertial says:

    We’re supposed to think it’s Russia, but I can’t figure out why. I keep asking, and Radio Derb listeners have been energetic in offering explanations, but nothing seems right.

    That’s because you think that there has been an increase in the level of Russophobia lately. There hasn’t. You just haven’t been paying attention. Russophobia has always been at the present high level. NATO expansion had proceeded at a steady pace. Undermining (or outright bombing) of Russia-friendly regimes had proceeded at a steady pace. Russia bashing in the media, ditto. The list goes on.

    The only change is that Russia, and our political elites’ crazy reaction to it, has moved into spotlight. And the reason is yes, Trump. Someone who is not hostile to Russia has gotten past the filters. Horrors!

    It’s like chickens in a chicken coop. They are always anti-fox, but when they think the fox has broken into the coop the squawking gets much louder.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't agree with your terminology, Inertial, though I agree with your take on what's been going on wrt Russia. I wrote about this just yesterday. I just think its not a "phobia" that the neocons have - these people have been boxing Russia into a corner and making stupid defense agreements with every country and it's brother since the end of the Cold War. (Mr. Derb has been all over this, of course).

    The neocons and the MIC just want to keep the party going with our borrowed money, and possibly there is some hatred for the Russians as they don't do PC and are taking a stand against the globalists. I'm sure there is another Greek word for what it is, but it is not fear these people have - maybe it will be if they don't stop it pretty soon. (Probably, the money will run out first, before things get too far.)

  15. @Achmed E. Newman

    The demonstrators were chanting: “Racist, sexist, anti-gay—Charles Murray, go away!”
     
    I haven't heard the tune behind this chant, Mr. Derbyshire, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that this is a new chant.

    If it's a new one, it's about damn time! It's 50-odd years later, and we still gotta put up with this "Hey hey, ho, ho, something-or-other has got to go!" It's just getting old, is all. Listen, radical protesters, hear me now or believe me later: "I don't care what your cause is, whether it's just or not, just get some damn new chants already, or I'm not coming out to get tear gassed ever again."

    “hear me now or believe me later”

    I miss that skit.

    Read More
  16. @inertial

    We’re supposed to think it’s Russia, but I can’t figure out why. I keep asking, and Radio Derb listeners have been energetic in offering explanations, but nothing seems right.
     
    That's because you think that there has been an increase in the level of Russophobia lately. There hasn't. You just haven't been paying attention. Russophobia has always been at the present high level. NATO expansion had proceeded at a steady pace. Undermining (or outright bombing) of Russia-friendly regimes had proceeded at a steady pace. Russia bashing in the media, ditto. The list goes on.

    The only change is that Russia, and our political elites' crazy reaction to it, has moved into spotlight. And the reason is yes, Trump. Someone who is not hostile to Russia has gotten past the filters. Horrors!

    It's like chickens in a chicken coop. They are always anti-fox, but when they think the fox has broken into the coop the squawking gets much louder.

    I don’t agree with your terminology, Inertial, though I agree with your take on what’s been going on wrt Russia. I wrote about this just yesterday. I just think its not a “phobia” that the neocons have – these people have been boxing Russia into a corner and making stupid defense agreements with every country and it’s brother since the end of the Cold War. (Mr. Derb has been all over this, of course).

    The neocons and the MIC just want to keep the party going with our borrowed money, and possibly there is some hatred for the Russians as they don’t do PC and are taking a stand against the globalists. I’m sure there is another Greek word for what it is, but it is not fear these people have – maybe it will be if they don’t stop it pretty soon. (Probably, the money will run out first, before things get too far.)

    Read More
  17. Give Putin a State Dinner. Ask him to address the American people. Trump said he would improve relations with Russia. I am already tired of waiting. If Trump is in charge of foreign policy he needs to deliver. If he is not he needs to tell us who is. Names, addresses and photos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Just give them the visa waiver, too, while you're at it.
  18. @Sean
    Winston Churchill was great supporter of using mustard gas (on Kurds and Russians).

    Sean, mustard gas is serious deadly stuff that kills. Tear gas is not nearly on that level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

    CS gas just clears your sinuses While burning the hide off of Russian soldiers en mass in Syria would be a bit much ,Trump does need to kill some Russians now. At the very least least shoot down some Russia planes in Syria; Stingers in the hands of the Delta force will do the trick, they can pretend to be US trained Syrians. Putin should blame his ambassador and ham fisted FSBcareerists for what is going to happen. But it was inevitable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinglak

  19. I… I don’t know exactly how to put this, sir, but are you aware of what a serious breach of security that would be? I mean… he’ll see everything. He’ll see the big board!

    Read More
  20. @Sean
    Here is why Russia and the US cannot be friends:-

    1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinglak,.
    2) Nation states exist, presumably because

    John Mearsheimer : "great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.[27]" Accordingly, offensive neorealists such as Mearsheimer believe that a state's best strategy to increase its relative power to the point of achieving hegemony is to rely on offensive tactics. Provided that it is rational for them to act aggressively, great powers will likely pursue expansionist policies, which will bring them closer to hegemony. Since global hegemony is nearly impossible to attain due to the constraints of power projection across oceans and retaliation forces, the best end game status states can hope to reach is that of a regional hegemon dominating its own geographical area.[28][29] This relentless quest for power inherently generates a state of "constant security competition, with the possibility of war always in the background".[30] Only once regional hegemony is attained do great powers become status quo states.
     

    The United States has been a regional hegemon since at least 1898 and probably earlier. It seems to me that what the (at least the neocon) leadership seeks is global hegemony. Going down that path will lead ultimately to some kind of disaster.

    Not all leaders seek even regional hegemony. Otto von Bismarck was quite content with a (largely) united Germany and didn’t seek to conquer France, Austria-Hungary or Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Bismark took a part of France, and then tried to pretend that Germany could be friends with Russia. It didn't work and Germany was then surrounded by enemies. The outcome of Germany not attacking France's ally Russia during the chaos of the 1905 revolution was, in my opinion, rather persuasive evidence for offensive realism.

    Mearsheimer on Strangling China & the Inevitability of War

    So the United States is an incredibly secure country; and one can make a quite persuasive argument that, even if China dominates Asia, it’s not going to affect the United States in any meaningful way.

    My view is that there’s one powerful counter to that argument; and it’s the main argument again isolationism; and it says that if China dominates all of Asia, if it’s a regional hegemon, it is then free to roam around the world much the way the United States, as a regional hegemon, is free to roam around the world.

    Most Americans don’t think about this, but the reason that the United States is wandering all over God’s little green acre, sticking its nose in everybody’s business, is because we are free to roam. We have no threats in the Western Hemisphere that pin us down.

    Now if China is free to roam because it’s a potential hegemon, it can roam into the Western Hemisphere. It can develop friendly relations with a country like Brazil or country like Mexico. It could put a naval base in Brazil much the way the Soviets were putting troops in Cuba, right?

    So what the United States fears about China dominating Asia is the possibility that it will not invade the United States, but that it will move into the Western Hemisphere, form a close alliance with a country like Brazil or Cuba or Mexico, and become a threat to the United States from inside the Hemisphere.
     

    Russia may have seen it as retaliation for Ukraine US, but they should have had the sense to realise what America can do if annoyed, and given all Trump's people a wide berth. This is ringing the alarm bells, its like the Zimmerman telegram, but worse.
  21. Hey! I like the idea. Given the intellect in the room, damned near any Russian would raise the average IQ by at least 50% … which is why it’ll never happen. Americanos are genetically, socially and culturally sub-standard. If Hitler were around, he’d be after the US political class rather than the jews!

    Read More
  22. @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't agree with your terminology, Inertial, though I agree with your take on what's been going on wrt Russia. I wrote about this just yesterday. I just think its not a "phobia" that the neocons have - these people have been boxing Russia into a corner and making stupid defense agreements with every country and it's brother since the end of the Cold War. (Mr. Derb has been all over this, of course).

    The neocons and the MIC just want to keep the party going with our borrowed money, and possibly there is some hatred for the Russians as they don't do PC and are taking a stand against the globalists. I'm sure there is another Greek word for what it is, but it is not fear these people have - maybe it will be if they don't stop it pretty soon. (Probably, the money will run out first, before things get too far.)

    The English word that I’d use is avarice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yep, that is a good one, though I'm not sure it is all. However, I'm not in these peoples gucci shoes so ....

    1) Avarice
    2) Arrogance
    3) Evil/Stupidity (hard to sort those 2 most times)

    Anyway, I had wanted a Greek word just so it could be "Russioxxxxxxx"
  23. It is a shame Derbyshire doesn’t understand the Russian language. A look through the Russian media or internet forums would quickly show him how much contempt the average Russian has for “pindosy”. And Russian dislike of America is based mostly in jealousy and humiliation. Russians believe the US caused the break up of the USSR. Russians, just like most Muslims, also see economic growth as a zero sum game. If the US is richer than Russia it can only be because Americans are somehow stealing from the rest of the world. Since, as every Russian knows, Americans are stupid and culturally shallow, they could not have acquired wealth fairly. Russians believe that “free markets” are a conspiracy. If Trump succeeds in creating a resurgent, self confident America, Russia will become even more antagonistic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    Hmm, not good.

    I looked up "pindos". Any idea how a name for the Greeks of the north shore of the Black Sea, came to designate Americans??
  24. @Diversity Heretic
    The English word that I'd use is avarice.

    Yep, that is a good one, though I’m not sure it is all. However, I’m not in these peoples gucci shoes so ….

    1) Avarice
    2) Arrogance
    3) Evil/Stupidity (hard to sort those 2 most times)

    Anyway, I had wanted a Greek word just so it could be “Russioxxxxxxx”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    According to wiki ("Seven Deadly Sins"), the Greek for avarice is "aplestia" or "philargyria". Arrogance of course probably best rendered "hubris". "Russokakia" for "intending/imputing evil to Russia" is horribly bad but has a nice ring to it.

    Gluttony can apparently in NT koine also be "phagos", and "Russophagia" with its modern connotations of an eating disorder sounds nice.

  25. Sean says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Sean, mustard gas is serious deadly stuff that kills. Tear gas is not nearly on that level.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

    CS gas just clears your sinuses While burning the hide off of Russian soldiers en mass in Syria would be a bit much ,Trump does need to kill some Russians now. At the very least least shoot down some Russia planes in Syria; Stingers in the hands of the Delta force will do the trick, they can pretend to be US trained Syrians. Putin should blame his ambassador and ham fisted FSBcareerists for what is going to happen. But it was inevitable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinglak

    Read More
  26. Truth says:

    Invite the Russian Ambassador to cabinet meetings? Another BRILLIANT idea there Derb, keep in coming! I’ll do you one better though, I think the Donna should REALLY piss the lefties off and invite the head of the Russian military to Pentagon meetings! Now that would make their heads spin.

    Read More
  27. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Yep, that is a good one, though I'm not sure it is all. However, I'm not in these peoples gucci shoes so ....

    1) Avarice
    2) Arrogance
    3) Evil/Stupidity (hard to sort those 2 most times)

    Anyway, I had wanted a Greek word just so it could be "Russioxxxxxxx"

    According to wiki (“Seven Deadly Sins”), the Greek for avarice is “aplestia” or “philargyria”. Arrogance of course probably best rendered “hubris”. “Russokakia” for “intending/imputing evil to Russia” is horribly bad but has a nice ring to it.

    Gluttony can apparently in NT koine also be “phagos”, and “Russophagia” with its modern connotations of an eating disorder sounds nice.

    Read More
  28. @Stogumber
    Wonderful. I, too, thought: Now it is time to double down on the Russian connexion.

    Even before you refuse to apologize to a leftist you make clear you do not accept their premises at all.
    The response should have been hell yeah we talked to russia, the deep state and obama and clinton were attempting to start world war three over pussy riot and we ran as an anti war party and we assured russia that there would be a new foreign party in a few months and to please not take the provocations to war of the globalists to seriously

    and it is treason to attempt to interfere with the administration of a duly elected president, the very existence of a deep state in the united states,let alone it’s interference in politics, let alone its willingness to openly defy an elected president is exactly what the legacy memory of soviet tactics ought to evoke, its worth noting how ironic it is that todays communists are using the memory of yesterdays communists to further their ambitions having lost their influence in both russia and america

    Read More
  29. Sean says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    The United States has been a regional hegemon since at least 1898 and probably earlier. It seems to me that what the (at least the neocon) leadership seeks is global hegemony. Going down that path will lead ultimately to some kind of disaster.

    Not all leaders seek even regional hegemony. Otto von Bismarck was quite content with a (largely) united Germany and didn't seek to conquer France, Austria-Hungary or Russia.

    Bismark took a part of France, and then tried to pretend that Germany could be friends with Russia. It didn’t work and Germany was then surrounded by enemies. The outcome of Germany not attacking France’s ally Russia during the chaos of the 1905 revolution was, in my opinion, rather persuasive evidence for offensive realism.

    Mearsheimer on Strangling China & the Inevitability of War

    So the United States is an incredibly secure country; and one can make a quite persuasive argument that, even if China dominates Asia, it’s not going to affect the United States in any meaningful way.

    My view is that there’s one powerful counter to that argument; and it’s the main argument again isolationism; and it says that if China dominates all of Asia, if it’s a regional hegemon, it is then free to roam around the world much the way the United States, as a regional hegemon, is free to roam around the world.

    Most Americans don’t think about this, but the reason that the United States is wandering all over God’s little green acre, sticking its nose in everybody’s business, is because we are free to roam. We have no threats in the Western Hemisphere that pin us down.

    Now if China is free to roam because it’s a potential hegemon, it can roam into the Western Hemisphere. It can develop friendly relations with a country like Brazil or country like Mexico. It could put a naval base in Brazil much the way the Soviets were putting troops in Cuba, right?

    So what the United States fears about China dominating Asia is the possibility that it will not invade the United States, but that it will move into the Western Hemisphere, form a close alliance with a country like Brazil or Cuba or Mexico, and become a threat to the United States from inside the Hemisphere.

    Russia may have seen it as retaliation for Ukraine US, but they should have had the sense to realise what America can do if annoyed, and given all Trump’s people a wide berth. This is ringing the alarm bells, its like the Zimmerman telegram, but worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    The trouble with Mearsheimer's position as set out in your chosen extracts is, of course, that the US lacks the power to maintain its position of global hegemon, which means that trying to do so will only end in disaster. Indeed it's clear that US forward military confrontation of China has been a big reason for China developing precisely the kind of high cost, long term investment naval and other force projection capabilities that will be such a serious problem for the US in the future. To some extent, such thinking is indeed self-fulfilling. One does not need to be a flower-presenting hippy peacenik to recognise that aggression only works if you can win by it, and otherwise it is counterproductive, and often disastrously so.

    US share of global gdp is now down comparable to or below what it was in 1913, and only the division and subsequent collective suicide in two world wars of the collectively more powerful European states allowed it to achieve the global dominance it held during the mid- and late C20th. During that time the US accounted for over a quarter of global gdp alone, and its satellite states in Japan and Europe for nearly another fifth.

    There is no particularly compelling reason to expect that trend (relative US decline) to change any time soon.

    And even if the policy argument were correct in theory, there's no sign the US regime, elites and political system is even capable of pursuing it. The only rational way to pursue such a strategy would have been a close alliance with Russia in order to isolate China, but the response to the election of Trump has only confirmed that the combination of basic irrationality and corruption in the service of the interests of foreign states and interests that has driven US foreign policy for decades is even more deeply embedded within the US elites than appeared to be the case.

    Given the real world context described above, the idea of pushing for an aggressive forward confrontation of China to try to prevent it from establishing the kind of regional security for itself that, as Mearsheimer himself argues, all states seek, seems grossly irresponsible, given that we live in the era of the nuclear peace for good reason, and any miscalculation or error will result not in the kind of costly but effective strangulation of a potential rival achieved against Japan in the early C20th, but quite possibly in a catastrophic nuclear war.

    Mearsheimer talks a lot of sense on many issues, but on this he's living in something of a fantasy world, ironically, imo.
  30. Svigor says:

    I’d say he’s done himself a favor there, saved himself wasting a lot of time that he could much more profitably devote to reversing the anti-cop, anti-white, Open-Borders mindset that settled in at the Justice Department under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

    All the Eeyores here are going bonkers over this one. I don’t understand why. First, you don’t want anyone investigating himself. Second, as you say, the whole thing is complete nonsense, and a time-waster.

    Read More
  31. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @WorkingClass
    Give Putin a State Dinner. Ask him to address the American people. Trump said he would improve relations with Russia. I am already tired of waiting. If Trump is in charge of foreign policy he needs to deliver. If he is not he needs to tell us who is. Names, addresses and photos.

    Just give them the visa waiver, too, while you’re at it.

    Read More
  32. Norma Brown says: • Website

    you jest — but in the 1980s (detente) a certain senior State Dept officer on the Soviet desk invited the Soviet Embassy to send a representative to sit in on a typical Monday morning quarterback session for his team. Really. The rest of the group was pretty astonished; I doubt that anybody said what they had come prepared to say in a closed meeting. But such utopianists as this guy, who also told the Soviet officials invited to his home as top dog in a certain consulate “consider this house to be your house.” We always laughed, “they do, they do.”

    Read More
  33. Randal says:
    @Sean
    Bismark took a part of France, and then tried to pretend that Germany could be friends with Russia. It didn't work and Germany was then surrounded by enemies. The outcome of Germany not attacking France's ally Russia during the chaos of the 1905 revolution was, in my opinion, rather persuasive evidence for offensive realism.

    Mearsheimer on Strangling China & the Inevitability of War

    So the United States is an incredibly secure country; and one can make a quite persuasive argument that, even if China dominates Asia, it’s not going to affect the United States in any meaningful way.

    My view is that there’s one powerful counter to that argument; and it’s the main argument again isolationism; and it says that if China dominates all of Asia, if it’s a regional hegemon, it is then free to roam around the world much the way the United States, as a regional hegemon, is free to roam around the world.

    Most Americans don’t think about this, but the reason that the United States is wandering all over God’s little green acre, sticking its nose in everybody’s business, is because we are free to roam. We have no threats in the Western Hemisphere that pin us down.

    Now if China is free to roam because it’s a potential hegemon, it can roam into the Western Hemisphere. It can develop friendly relations with a country like Brazil or country like Mexico. It could put a naval base in Brazil much the way the Soviets were putting troops in Cuba, right?

    So what the United States fears about China dominating Asia is the possibility that it will not invade the United States, but that it will move into the Western Hemisphere, form a close alliance with a country like Brazil or Cuba or Mexico, and become a threat to the United States from inside the Hemisphere.
     

    Russia may have seen it as retaliation for Ukraine US, but they should have had the sense to realise what America can do if annoyed, and given all Trump's people a wide berth. This is ringing the alarm bells, its like the Zimmerman telegram, but worse.

    The trouble with Mearsheimer’s position as set out in your chosen extracts is, of course, that the US lacks the power to maintain its position of global hegemon, which means that trying to do so will only end in disaster. Indeed it’s clear that US forward military confrontation of China has been a big reason for China developing precisely the kind of high cost, long term investment naval and other force projection capabilities that will be such a serious problem for the US in the future. To some extent, such thinking is indeed self-fulfilling. One does not need to be a flower-presenting hippy peacenik to recognise that aggression only works if you can win by it, and otherwise it is counterproductive, and often disastrously so.

    US share of global gdp is now down comparable to or below what it was in 1913, and only the division and subsequent collective suicide in two world wars of the collectively more powerful European states allowed it to achieve the global dominance it held during the mid- and late C20th. During that time the US accounted for over a quarter of global gdp alone, and its satellite states in Japan and Europe for nearly another fifth.

    There is no particularly compelling reason to expect that trend (relative US decline) to change any time soon.

    And even if the policy argument were correct in theory, there’s no sign the US regime, elites and political system is even capable of pursuing it. The only rational way to pursue such a strategy would have been a close alliance with Russia in order to isolate China, but the response to the election of Trump has only confirmed that the combination of basic irrationality and corruption in the service of the interests of foreign states and interests that has driven US foreign policy for decades is even more deeply embedded within the US elites than appeared to be the case.

    Given the real world context described above, the idea of pushing for an aggressive forward confrontation of China to try to prevent it from establishing the kind of regional security for itself that, as Mearsheimer himself argues, all states seek, seems grossly irresponsible, given that we live in the era of the nuclear peace for good reason, and any miscalculation or error will result not in the kind of costly but effective strangulation of a potential rival achieved against Japan in the early C20th, but quite possibly in a catastrophic nuclear war.

    Mearsheimer talks a lot of sense on many issues, but on this he’s living in something of a fantasy world, ironically, imo.

    Read More
  34. @Peter Akuleyev
    It is a shame Derbyshire doesn't understand the Russian language. A look through the Russian media or internet forums would quickly show him how much contempt the average Russian has for "pindosy". And Russian dislike of America is based mostly in jealousy and humiliation. Russians believe the US caused the break up of the USSR. Russians, just like most Muslims, also see economic growth as a zero sum game. If the US is richer than Russia it can only be because Americans are somehow stealing from the rest of the world. Since, as every Russian knows, Americans are stupid and culturally shallow, they could not have acquired wealth fairly. Russians believe that "free markets" are a conspiracy. If Trump succeeds in creating a resurgent, self confident America, Russia will become even more antagonistic.

    Hmm, not good.

    I looked up “pindos”. Any idea how a name for the Greeks of the north shore of the Black Sea, came to designate Americans??

    Read More
  35. Sean says:
    @Randal
    The trouble with Mearsheimer's position as set out in your chosen extracts is, of course, that the US lacks the power to maintain its position of global hegemon, which means that trying to do so will only end in disaster. Indeed it's clear that US forward military confrontation of China has been a big reason for China developing precisely the kind of high cost, long term investment naval and other force projection capabilities that will be such a serious problem for the US in the future. To some extent, such thinking is indeed self-fulfilling. One does not need to be a flower-presenting hippy peacenik to recognise that aggression only works if you can win by it, and otherwise it is counterproductive, and often disastrously so.

    US share of global gdp is now down comparable to or below what it was in 1913, and only the division and subsequent collective suicide in two world wars of the collectively more powerful European states allowed it to achieve the global dominance it held during the mid- and late C20th. During that time the US accounted for over a quarter of global gdp alone, and its satellite states in Japan and Europe for nearly another fifth.

    There is no particularly compelling reason to expect that trend (relative US decline) to change any time soon.

    And even if the policy argument were correct in theory, there's no sign the US regime, elites and political system is even capable of pursuing it. The only rational way to pursue such a strategy would have been a close alliance with Russia in order to isolate China, but the response to the election of Trump has only confirmed that the combination of basic irrationality and corruption in the service of the interests of foreign states and interests that has driven US foreign policy for decades is even more deeply embedded within the US elites than appeared to be the case.

    Given the real world context described above, the idea of pushing for an aggressive forward confrontation of China to try to prevent it from establishing the kind of regional security for itself that, as Mearsheimer himself argues, all states seek, seems grossly irresponsible, given that we live in the era of the nuclear peace for good reason, and any miscalculation or error will result not in the kind of costly but effective strangulation of a potential rival achieved against Japan in the early C20th, but quite possibly in a catastrophic nuclear war.

    Mearsheimer talks a lot of sense on many issues, but on this he's living in something of a fantasy world, ironically, imo.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    The sad part is that a surprising number of those claiming to advocate confrontational militarist policies on supposedly "realist" grounds are probably actually motivated by an underlying delusional belief that we live in a fantasy world of good and evil, rather than the real one. Tolkien, for all his undoubted genius, probably has more than we might like to think to answer for, in foreign policy terms.

    Then again, I could be wrong and maybe we do live in a world of good versus evil after all. Perhaps somewhere, even as we write these comments, a small band of heroes is setting out on a secret quest to escort a lowly coder in his journey to carry the One USB to the darkest heart of Washington, there to plug it into the supercomputer where its software was written by the CIA to rule the world, and use it to reveal all the darkest truths and secrets of the US regime, and thereby break its power forever.

    Maybe.
  36. Randal says:
    @Sean
    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/175

    The sad part is that a surprising number of those claiming to advocate confrontational militarist policies on supposedly “realist” grounds are probably actually motivated by an underlying delusional belief that we live in a fantasy world of good and evil, rather than the real one. Tolkien, for all his undoubted genius, probably has more than we might like to think to answer for, in foreign policy terms.

    Then again, I could be wrong and maybe we do live in a world of good versus evil after all. Perhaps somewhere, even as we write these comments, a small band of heroes is setting out on a secret quest to escort a lowly coder in his journey to carry the One USB to the darkest heart of Washington, there to plug it into the supercomputer where its software was written by the CIA to rule the world, and use it to reveal all the darkest truths and secrets of the US regime, and thereby break its power forever.

    Maybe.

    Read More
  37. Sean says:

    A superlatively good CIA would be able control the world, a bad CIA would not be able to achieve the slightest influence.. “Good” only has meaning in the sense of good at doing the things that whatever we are speaking are called good for doing. A “good” serial killer would not get caught.

    A good Russian ambassador would have influence over US policy, a bad US president would give another country such influence. I don’t see any utility in letting the Russians or the US population think the Russians are influencing the US. I expect anyone who does think that will be disabused shortly.

    Read More
  38. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    Here is why Russia and the US cannot be friends:-

    1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinglak,.
    2) Nation states exist, presumably because

    John Mearsheimer : "great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.[27]" Accordingly, offensive neorealists such as Mearsheimer believe that a state's best strategy to increase its relative power to the point of achieving hegemony is to rely on offensive tactics. Provided that it is rational for them to act aggressively, great powers will likely pursue expansionist policies, which will bring them closer to hegemony. Since global hegemony is nearly impossible to attain due to the constraints of power projection across oceans and retaliation forces, the best end game status states can hope to reach is that of a regional hegemon dominating its own geographical area.[28][29] This relentless quest for power inherently generates a state of "constant security competition, with the possibility of war always in the background".[30] Only once regional hegemony is attained do great powers become status quo states.
     

    John Mearsheimer is also a NATO skeptic. Along with being a ‘realist’ he is also big on making a distinction between strategic territory and the non strategic. And most of the World is non strategic.

    The thing that would really threaten Russia is abandoning NATO. The Germans would need nukes. And the US might talk a good game, but the Germans have proven themselves more than once to be serious threats.

    Plus, we disarmed Europe. By demanding 2% NATO defense spending, everyone decided to free ride and cheat. And hence is lightly armed for anything plausibly offensive. There is probably enough stuff around to throw together enough to play defense for a while.

    Maybe Cold War 2 is as good as it gets. If it has to be something, this is a pseudo conflict, with nothing to fight over and plenty of reasons *not* to pursue it with any energy. Putin never had it so good, either. If it will keep our deep state and Putin happy, I suppose I’ll hate Russia. The Commies were much better enemies. They were believable enough to create modest political unity in the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Germany is no threat to Russia.

    Since German women don't have many children at all, the population of actual Germans in Germany is going to enter a drastic and prolonged nosedive. They simply won't have the young bodies to staff their army, navy, or air force even for an effective territorial defense, let alone enough men to attack or invade anywhere else.

    Sad to say that Germany is a joke militarily, and on current trends it likely will become more so.
  39. @anon
    John Mearsheimer is also a NATO skeptic. Along with being a 'realist' he is also big on making a distinction between strategic territory and the non strategic. And most of the World is non strategic.

    The thing that would really threaten Russia is abandoning NATO. The Germans would need nukes. And the US might talk a good game, but the Germans have proven themselves more than once to be serious threats.

    Plus, we disarmed Europe. By demanding 2% NATO defense spending, everyone decided to free ride and cheat. And hence is lightly armed for anything plausibly offensive. There is probably enough stuff around to throw together enough to play defense for a while.

    Maybe Cold War 2 is as good as it gets. If it has to be something, this is a pseudo conflict, with nothing to fight over and plenty of reasons *not* to pursue it with any energy. Putin never had it so good, either. If it will keep our deep state and Putin happy, I suppose I'll hate Russia. The Commies were much better enemies. They were believable enough to create modest political unity in the US.

    Germany is no threat to Russia.

    Since German women don’t have many children at all, the population of actual Germans in Germany is going to enter a drastic and prolonged nosedive. They simply won’t have the young bodies to staff their army, navy, or air force even for an effective territorial defense, let alone enough men to attack or invade anywhere else.

    Sad to say that Germany is a joke militarily, and on current trends it likely will become more so.

    Read More
  40. Truth says:

    Since German women don’t have many children at all,

    Russians don’t have children either, and Germans don’t drink as much.

    Read More
  41. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I listened this morning (Saturday March 11, 2017) fresh Radio Derb.
    As always, it was very good. One little comment.
    Derbyshire ascribes the birth of ethno-masochism
    to the this statement by Susan Sontag:

    The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.

    Not a hint that she addressed this tirade to Jews (she was Jewish herself.)
    I asked numerous times on various threads on Unz Review if Jews are to be considered as belonging to white race, and invariably got the answers
    “No, they are not.”
    In this sense the tirade by Sontag should be classified towards ethno-sadism, and not ethno-masochism. Subsequent developments into ethno-masochism are subject to a separate discussion.
    Myself, I do not have an opinion on
    “if Jews are to be considered as belonging to white race,”
    and do not care.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Limbaugh and company certainly entertain. But a steady diet of ideological comfort food is no substitute for hearty intellectual fare.
Once as a colonial project, now as a moral playground, the ancient continent remains the object of Great Power maneuvering