The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Pat Buchanan ArchiveBlogview
Lavrov vs. McCain: Is Russia an Enemy?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The founding fathers of the Munich Security Conference, said John McCain, would be “be alarmed by the turning away from universal values and toward old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism.”

McCain was followed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who called for a “post-West world order.” Russia has “immense potential” for that said Lavrov, “we’re open for that inasmuch as the U.S. is open.”

Now McCain is not wrong. Nationalism is an idea whose time has come again. Those “old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism” do seem everywhere ascendant. But that is a reality we must recognize and deal with. Deploring it will not make it go away.

But what are these “universal values” McCain is talking about?

Democracy? The free elections in India gave power to Hindu nationalists. In Palestine, Hamas. In Lebanon, Hezbollah. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, then overthrown in a military coup welcomed by the world’s oldest and greatest democracy. Have we forgotten it was a democratically elected government we helped to overthrow in Kiev?

Democracy is a bus you get off when it reaches your stop, says Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, autocrat of Ankara, a NATO ally.

Is freedom of religion a “universal value”?

Preach or proselytize for Christianity in much of the Islamic world and you are a candidate for martyrdom. Practice freedom of speech in Xi Jinping’s China and you can wind up in a cell.

As for the Western belief in the equality of all voluntary sexual relations, in some African and Muslim countries, homosexuals are beheaded and adulterers stoned to death.

In Nuristan Province in U.S.-liberated Afghanistan this month, an armed mob of 300 besieged a jail, shot three cops and dragged out an 18-year-old woman who had eloped with her lover to escape an arranged marriage. Beaten by relatives, the girl was shot by an older brother with a hunting rifle and by a younger brother with his AK-47.

Afghan family values.

Her lover was turned over to the husband. An “honor killing,” and, like suicide bombings, not uncommon in a world where many see such actions as commendable in the sight of Allah.

McCain calls himself an “unapologetic believer in the West” who refuses “to accept that our values are morally equivalent to those of our adversaries.”

Lavrov seemed to be saying this:

Reality requires us here in Munich to recognize that, in the new struggle for the world, Russia and the U.S. are natural allies not natural enemies. Though we may quarrel over Crimea and the Donbass, we are in the same boat. Either we sail together, or sink together.

Does the foreign minister not have a point?

Unlike the Cold War, Moscow does not command a world empire. Though a nuclear superpower still, she is a nation whose GDP is that of Spain and whose population of fewer than 150 million is shrinking. And Russia threatens no U.S. vital interest.

Where America is besieged by millions of illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico, Russia faces to her south 1.3 billion Chinese looking hungrily at resource-rich Siberia and Russia’s Far East.

ORDER IT NOW

The China that is pushing America and its allies out of the East and South China Seas is also building a new Silk Road through former Russian and Soviet provinces in Central Asia. With an estimated 16 million Muslims, Russia is threatened by the same terrorists, and is far closer to the Middle East, the source of Sunni terror.Is Putin’s Russia an enemy, as McCain seems to believe?

Before we can answer that question, we need to know what the new world struggle is about, who the antagonists are, and what the threats are to us.

If we believe the struggle is for “global democracy” and “human rights,” then that may put Putin on the other side. But how then can we be allies of President el-Sissi of Egypt and Erdogan of Turkey, and the kings, emirs and sultans of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman?

But if the new world struggle is about defending ourselves and our civilization, Russia would appear to be not only a natural ally, but a more critical and powerful one than that crowd in Kiev.

In August 1914, Europe plunged into a 50-month bloodbath over an assassinated archduke. In 1939, Britain and France declared war to keep Poland from having to give up a Prussian port, Danzig, taken from Germany under the duress of a starvation blockade in 1919 and in clear violation of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the Danzigers’ right of self-determination. In the two wars, 50 million to 100 million died.

Today, the United States is confronting Russia, a huge and natural ally, over a peninsula that had belonged to her since the 18th century and is 5,000 miles from the United States.

“We have immense potential that has yet to be tapped into,” volunteered Lavrov. But to deal, we must have “mutual respect.”

Hopefully, President Trump will sound out the Russians, and tune out the Beltway hawks.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: John McCain, Neocons, Russia 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. KenH says:

    Now McCain is not wrong. Nationalism is an idea whose time has come again. Those “old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism” do seem everywhere ascendant.

    Funny how the old codger McCain has absolutely no problem with “old ties of blood and race” when it concerns the Jews of Israel or LA Raza who he’s spoken lovingly to on occasion. Only the stirrings of white racial identity in Europe and America that have long been dormant has the decrepit old fool to gnashing his teeth and hissing like a feral tom cat.

    Preach or proselytize for Christianity in much of the Islamic world and you are a candidate for martyrdom.

    What? I thought Islam was a religion of peace? Pat must be confused.

    Otherwise it seems U.S. government officials cling to a view of the Russians that dates back to the 1950′s during the cold war. It’s time to bury the hatchet and move forward together. An alliance with Russia is an idea whose time has finally come. I believe the two nations can achieve great things as friends and staunch allies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Russia may not regard itself the enemy of the USA, but USA definitely regards Russia as the sworn enemy because Russian orthodox Christianity make the Anglo and Western European an illegitimate Christian pretender and reminds them they are the barbaric 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'the Franks'. Getting rid of Russian will make their authenticity and legitimacy as sole Christian linkage to the creator unquestionable and authoritative.

    In addition, Russia is the sole nuclear power that can put the American ambition on global full spectrum dominance in check. Russia is the prime target for the USA to remove to achieve its US Primacy doctrine, i.e. “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
    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
    /pbuchanan/lavrov-vs-mccain-is-russia-an-enemy/#comment-1782884
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. There is a great contradiction.

    Progs and Globalists see Trump as an embarrassment. He is a vulgar and boorish Ugly American. He is an embarrassment to the entire world. The man has no class. He has no manners.
    But we must ask.. in contrast to whom? Hillary has class? The drunkard? The ill-tempered wench? And her husband? Geez. Obama’s manners were all just an act. He was some pothead punk who cleaned up his act for Jewish elites because he figured on hitting the jackpot by toying with white psychology. He even got the Nobel Prize for what-he-might-do. What he really did was mess up MENA worse than Bush. As for Michelle Obama, I’ll be nice and just pass.
    But even if we were to assume Hillary and Obama are people of class and manners, what kind of cultural personalities did they attract and hang with? Rappers, trashy celebrities, the likes of Lena Dunham, madonna, and Miley Cyrus. All the vain vulgar trash in Hollywood. All the decadent and excessive homosexuals and trannies. That is culture? Looks like the flotsam in Fellini’s LA DOLCE VITA.
    And what has become of higher education in recent yrs? Even Ivy League colleges invite porn performers to give lectures. There are now tons of classes on Pop Culture. Even fancy colleges have kids with tattoos and blue-dyed hair. Even some professors dress and act like teens or children begging for attention. (When a 8 yr old girl puts funny things in her hair and says, “Mommy, Look”, that’s cute. When grown-ups dye their hair green and stick a piece of metal through their nose, it is PATHETIC!) So, if there’s any distinction between Trump and Liberals, it’s not no class vs class. It’s conventional no class vs bohemian no class. Even trashiness now comes in many shades. So, if you’re well-educated and have tattoos & a nose ring, maybe it’s a statement or radical gesture. But if you’re a deplorable and have tattoos and piercing, you’re just vulgar. Likewise, if you’re part of the globalist elite and wear nice suits, you have class. But if you’re Trump and wear nice suits, you’re just crass.

    Anyway, given the pervasiveness of pop culture and PC(with homomania and tranny excess) everywhere, it makes no sense for anyone to accuse anyone of vulgarity. It is all around. Maybe the Liberal elites think theirs is a kind of haute or ironic vulgarity, but trash is trash. Even the British Royal Family is immersed in celebrity trash culture. Even smart women who went to nice schools still read teen fiction and write about them in respectable journals. And full-grown men are devoted to video games and comic book movies across the political spectrum.

    Be that as it may, even if we were to agree that Trump is more vulgar than other politicians, why should this matter when he is for America First? He’s for nationalism, which means Americans should focus on America and leave the rest of the world alone. So, even if Trump is vulgar trash who represents a gross and vulgar America, his worldview won’t do much harm since he isn’t promoting Americanism as the template for all the world. America First is nationalism, and that means other nations should put their nations first also. So, it should be Germany First for Germans, Japan First for Japan, Turkey First for Turkey, France First for France, Russia First for Russians, and etc. Whatever one may say of Trump — vulgar, trashy, boorish, crude, etc — , he’s not foisting his brand of Americanism on the entire world. His nationalism and anti-globalism are respectful of the rest of the world. It means Americans should mind American interests and affairs, and let each people pursue their own national business and decide on their own values and culture. So, even if Trumpism is trashism, America First means Trumpian Trashiness will be confined within the walls of America. It will be not forced on the rest of the world. Globalism has sought to remake the entire world in the image of America. Its vision is America For All and All For America. In other words, America should use its great might — military, economic, cultural, and ‘intellectual’ — to spread its ideas, values, sights, and sounds all over the world. It would be Hollywood uber alles, rap music uber alles, Pentagon uber alles, Wall Street uber alles, Harvard uber alles.
    But Trump rejects globalism. His nationalism means that, good or bad, Americanism is for Americans in America. As for other nations, it is up to them to determine their own interests, ideas, icons, images, and values. So, what is the problem?

    Progs, who are globalist, deride Trumpean America as trashy but then complain that Trump isn’t committed to spreading Americanism all over the world(and opening America to all the world). This is a contradiction. If America that elected Trump is that trashy and stupid, why should America be ruling and dominating the world? If America is that horrible and bad, shouldn’t Americanism be limited to America as Trump says? And if Trump’s America is so horrible, why bring all those people to hell that is America?

    Now, progs might say they are for America exerting its vision, values, and will around the world under the decent leadership of someone like Obama or Hillary. But where do they get this notion that Obama-ism or Hillary-ism has anything to do with truth, decency, or morality? Creating conditions like post-Gaddafi Libya or Syria torn apart by civil war fomented by US and its allies? Trying to convert the entire world to the notion that Bruce Jenner is a ‘woman’ or that there should be massive parades in honor of what George Takei and Milo do in private?
    Rap music and its foul expressions are something the US should be proud of and spread all over? ‘Twerking’ as a dance? Open sewage porn even for kiddies? Stuff like GIRLS and other TV shows(which would have been X-rated even up to the 90s), the mania for tattoos, slut culture, and juvenilia? Are we to believe that Obama’s or Hillary’s America is any classier than Trump’s America? Where is the evidence? Miley Cyrus and Jay-Z?

    We can agree that there is something crude, vulgar, and boorish about Trump. But what in current ‘Liberalism’ or ‘Progressivism’ is noble, dignified, refined, intelligent, sane, rational, or decent? Even Liberal professors in colleges are saying they are sick of snowflake millennials throwing tantrums.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

    Should the US project Black Lives Matter all over the world? But BLM is premised on a lie. The real truth is blacks are killing blacks and peoples of other races in the US. But even if BLM were valid, what does it have to with other nations with totally different histories and realities? Why should an American political cause be foisted upon other nations? It’s just a form of Justice-Imperialism. If any place needs a lesson on treating black lives with more civility, it is black Africa.

    So, Proggism makes no sense on any level. Progs say Trump is terrible and represents the rot that is America. Okay. If the US is so rotten, let’s contain the American disease INSIDE America. Let’s not infect the entire world.
    BUT, progs are upset that Trump is quarantining Americanism in America while letting other nations do their own thing. Progs want the US to use its muscle to force its values and ways on all the world. Some progs might argue that Americanism would be good and sound but for the fact that Trump smeared it with his ‘hate’. (But then, why are all these Libs and Progs mostly silent about US support of Zionist oppression of Palestinians? Where were all these Libs and Progs when Obama invoked BS ‘human rights’ to invade and destroy Libya? Or when Obama worked with US puppets in Middle East to arm and fund terrorists to tear Syria apart? And if Libs and Progs are so balanced and rationale, why all this paranoid hysteria about Russia and why all this hateful call for ‘new cold war’? And if Libs and Progs are so full of love of ‘minorities’, why the silence when Bill Clinton was locking up record numbers of blacks? And if Progs and Libs love Muslims so much and care about refugees, why didn’t they oppose Obama and Hillary’s foreign policy that spread wars in MENA and forced so many Muslims to become refugees? And if we go by political violence, which side has been attacking which side? All throughout 2016, it’s been the Bernie-and-Hillary supporters who’ve been most violent, aggressive, hateful, and disruptive… with full blessing of Jewish-controlled Media, which also celebrated the sucker-punching of Richard Spencer.) Anyway, if it’s true that the new wave of social injustice was unleashed by Trumpenfuhrer, why did BLM happen under Obama? If Obama Era was so wonderful, why all this race tensions? And what has American Culture been like during the Obama era? Can any prog or Lib say with a straight face that Lena Dunham, Miley Cyrus, Bruce Jenner as girl, madonna, Ashley Judd, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Sarah Silverman, Seth Rogan, Kardashians, and so many others are people who make America proud? Really? Do Liberals and Progs really believe that morality and history are on their side because their vision of truth and beauty is embodied by Pussy Riot who desecrate churches? (Meanwhile, these sacrilegious lot wax poetic about protecting the Koran from desecration. How these Virtue Nazis love to signal about how they are so tolerant, even as they try to push homomania on Russia, something they wouldn’t do to Muslim world, at least not just yet).

    There’s another contradiction at the core of Proggism. When Progs feign sophistication, intelligence, and reason, they always mean Europe, Canada(more European than the US), and the most European parts of America. If it’s about Latin America, it’s always the whitest and most Europeanized parts. Some Western Libs and Progs have fascination with Japanese culture, but they don’t look to Japan as an example or model.
    So, the European Way is, for them, the real City on the Hill that stupid Americans should aspire to.

    Okay. But if Europe is the highest peak of human civilization, shouldn’t it be independent of vulgar and boorish America? Why should European civilization be so servile, slavish, dependent, and subordinate to American power and interests? Why shouldn’t Europeans defend themselves and say GOOD BYE to Ugly American Uncle Sam, especially since WWII is history and the Cold War has long been over?

    Now, one can understand why Progs and Europeans disliked Bush II. Bush II lacked style & manners AND promoted America-uber-alles(and allies). In contrast, Trump, though boor he may be, is telling Europe to be free and go its own way. He is saying Europe should forge its own destiny and stop looking to the US for guidance, orders, inspiration, money, and approval. Given how lowly he is regarded over there, Europeans should jump at the chance and regain their full independence and sovereignty from the US that has dominated Europe since end of WWII. Instead, their attitude is, “We can’t do nuttin’ without you, master.” What the hell is this? Ugly American Trump offers them a chance to be free, but they want to stay under his wing. They are like the son in SIXTEEN CANDLES who wants to be with his parents.

    https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/8c43f1c7-f4ad-4c7f-b3cc-73afad48e647

    So much for European pride, dignity, integrity, and honor. Even when the US is ruled by ‘literally hitler’, Europeans are unwilling to forge their own independent path. They would rather plead with the US to protect them, lead them, fund them, and give them orders.

    The contradictions are crazy. Europeans look down on America, especially Trumpean American, but they are in a panic that the US won’t tell them what to do and protect them(even though EU faces no military threats, not even from Russia that has no designs on invading anything; its moves in Ukraine were forced by the US-backed coup d’etat).
    And ‘Liberals’ and Progs believe that EVERYTHING is better in more civilized Europe and that the EU should be the model for America… BUT, they believe the US should continue to exert dominance over the EU. They are upset that Trump isn’t keen on maintaining the US-dominant status quo that took hold in Europe since the end of WWII.

    Another contradiction. If Europe is so great, it must be because it’s ruled by Europeans. And Trump seems to understand this. He’s been warning the EU that it is being overrun by migrants and invaders. So, even though Trump is perceived as representing everything that is anathema to Noble Europeanism, he is the one who is warning Europe to defend itself and preserve its great heritage, culture, and territorial integrity. Imagine that. Ugly American Trump is giving advice to Europeans to protect and keep what they got.
    In contrast, ‘Liberals’ and Progs, who profess to admire European nations as the highest achievements of mankind, are advising Europe to welcome invasion by countless Muslims and Africans(and Asians too, esp from Pakistan to UK). And these ‘Liberal’ and proggy Europhiles are livid with Trump for his concern about the safety, security, and viability of European civilization and project under increasing duress resulting form massive invasion. (On the issue of Europe, Trump correctly sees no threat from Russia and a lot of threat from Middle East & Africa, but globalists have turned it upside down. Europeans are to fear a military invasion from Russia while welcoming endless numbers of Africans and Muslims as future patriots and defenders of Europe!) It’s surreal. ‘Liberals’ and Europeans take Trump’s remarks about Sweden and France as insults when those were anything but. Trump, boor that he is, has genuine appreciation for European civilization. He may not have read many fancy books, but he has eyes. He can see that Europeans did something wonderful there and Europe should be preserved. So, when he warns Sweden or France, he isn’t insulting them. He is warning them to keep the great things they got. But the globo-media spun it as ‘insult’. Media turned it into Trump vs Europe when it is Trump FOR Europe. Trump is telling Europe to preserve what it has against the massive tides of invasion. In contrast, ‘Liberals’ and Progs, for all their Europhilia, are urging Europe to take in more and more invaders and turn into something like Latin America or North Africa. (If diversity in Latin America and North Africa is so great, why do people there flee diversity to come to white nations? Europeans are told to welcome most that which non-whites do most to flee from. If blacks and Muslims are so troublesome that even their own kind flee from them, what will Europeans gain by taking them in? If wolves are fleeing from other wolves, should sheep take in the fleeing wolves?)

    Another contradiction. If Europe is really the glory of the world, something that the US should aspire to, why are ‘Liberals’ and Progs urging Europe to become more like America by increasing diversity? And if European elites feel that they are so much more refined and dignified than vulgar Americans, why do they want to remake their nations to look more and more like America culturally and demographically?
    ‘Liberals’ and Progs say they admire the socialist-democratic model of Europe, but are they even aware that such a system has worked in some nations, esp Germanic/Scandinavian ones, due to homogeneity and work ethic that made a High-Trust Society possible? Did these ‘Liberals’ and progs ever notice that the most high-trust areas in the US have been states dominated largely by Germanics and Scandies? I thought Libs and Progs are supposed to be smart. But they cannot even connect the dots. (This is where PC makes people stupid. Since PC places a taboo on honest discussion of racial and cultural differences, we are supposed to overlook the demographic factors involved in the variances among societies and nations.) Japan is also a relatively high-trust society due to combination of homogeneity, culture, and racial characteristics of the Japanese. Who thinks such can be maintained if Japan were to become 1/4 Japanese, 1/4 Asian-Indian, 1/4 Kurdish, and 1/4 Nigerian? I mean seriously. Do people really believe ‘Japanese Values’ will magically pass onto non-Japanese in Japan in equal measure? The huge divergences in income and influence among various racial and ethnic groups in California have made clear that the ‘values’ and abilities of one culture do not magically pass onto other groups. Compare California’s Jews with California’s Mexicans or blacks.
    Anyway, on the one hand, ‘sophisticated’ Libs and Progs affect Europhilia and claim that Europeans do everything better, BUT their vision is for Europe to become more like the US with more diversity, consumer culture, and youth culture. And even though Europeans and Canandians turn up their noses at the US, they beg for US to lead NATO and offer protection and leadership. And in demography and culture, Europeans and Canadians try to imitate Americanism in every way. Since the US has had sizable racial minorities, Canada and European nations feel they must also be America-like in this regard.

    If Libs and Progs love the European Way so much, why do they promote the very policies and agendas that are doing most to undermine, subvert, and destroy Europe? Should every church really be festooned with homo flags? Should Europe welcome tons of Africans and Muslims, as the pope says? Should Europeans have ugly and trashy black-American rap culture and its attitudes as their preferred cultural style? (Just sample today’s French pop music, and it’s mostly imitation of black rap trash attitudes. Same in UK.) For a people who profess to love and admire Europe, their main Europhile agenda seems to Africanize and Islamize Europe as much as possible and fast as possible. And of course, to homo-ize it. But, is it feasible to promote African-jungle-ization, Islamic sharia-ization, and decadent homo-ization at the same time? Are they compatible?

    Now, some Libs and Progs will argue that Europe is really just an Idea. It’s the idea that counts. And two of the ideas are Tolerance and Inclusion. So, if Europeans invoke Tolerance and Inclusion to welcome the world, they are upholding and practicing ‘European Values’. Libs and Progs say it is now atavistic to say there is a European race/people who belong to or have ownership of European lands. No, those people in Europe are merely people with European values and ideas, the only things that matter. So, if tons of non-Europeans arrive and take on those values and ideas, they are also ‘Europeans’.

    But this line of argument doesn’t make sense. If Europeanism is now just an idea, then why can’t it be spread around the world? After all, ideas are easier to spread than peoples. Why do non-Europeans have to come to Europe to partake of these great ideas? Why not have Africans take these ideas and ‘Europeanize’ Africa? Why not have Muslims ‘Europeanize’ the Middle East?
    But then, Progs and Libs might argue that Africa is so mired in African values and the Middle East is mired in Muslim ideas that they don’t give European ideas a chance to take root, grow, and spreads. So, for the time being, Africans and Muslims must come to the West to be ‘Europeanized’. But then, this means that European ideas and values are SUPERIOR to African ideas and Muslim ideas. Why else would non-Europeans be so eager to come to Europe? For sure, European ideas did more for Europe than African ideas did for Africa and Muslim ideas did for Middle East. But then, Libs and Progs say that it would be wrong to say some cultures are better than others — it might be ‘racist’ — , and if anything, the West must have ‘multi-culturalism’ so that non-white immigrants won’t be forced to adopt European culture. After all, assimilation might be construed as ‘cultural imperialism’ or ‘cultural genocide’, and we can’t have that.
    On the one hand, we are told that it would be ‘hateful’, ‘heartless’, ‘racist’, and ‘xenophobic’ if Europeans don’t welcome non-Europeans to become New Europeans. But then, we are also told that it would be cruel, oppressive, intolerant, and imperialist for Europeans to insist that the newcomers abandon their prior identities, heritages, and cultures to become ‘European’. Who is the ‘racist’ ‘Eurocentric’ white man to be telling a non-white person to give up his/her own identity to take on a white one? It’s damned if you, damned if you don’t for whitey.

    Europhiles are doing most to defile what is European. For one thing, there is no neat set of ‘European ideas’ or ‘Western values’ that could sum up the nations of Europe. European ideas have changed over time, and no people or civilization should be defined by ideas. If ideas are central, then communist Poland had more in common with communist China than with capitalist Germany. In truth, racially-historically-culturally, Poles are closer to Germans than to Chinese by a 1000 miles regardless of the reigning ideology. East Germany was communist and North Korea was communist. Does that mean East Germany should be bunched closer together with North Korea than with West Germany? If we go by idea-centrism, such would be true. But a nation is more than a set of ideas. After all, Germans were no less German under Nazism or communism than under democratic capitalism or Kaiserism. If Germans are defined by the current set of ‘western values’, then Germans in the past were not German since the prevailing ideologies were different then. Your real father is your real father regardless of his ideology. If he is atheist and if you’re religious, he is still your father. You can’t say another man is your real father since he too is religious, no more than your father can say another young man is his son cuz of his atheism. Ethnos, like family, runs deeper than ideas and ideology.

    Also, a people and culture are defined aesthetically as well, and different races have different aesthetics. If we are to prize Western Art, shouldn’t the people depicted in the art be prized more than the art itself? After all, art is merely a representation of a people.
    Greek sculptures depict certain human forms because there were Greeks who looked like that.
    So, even modern Greeks feel a connection to their art since there is a racial-historical connection between Greek folks and Greek art.
    Likewise, African art depict African aesthetics and Hindu art depict Asian-Indian aesthetics. Surely, the people count more than the stones and woods that were carved in their image. If a make a painting of a flower, what is more important? The painting or the flower? The painting exists only because the flower existed.
    So, all of Western Art has to be appreciated as the expression, reflection, and representation of Western peoples. Sure, other peoples can learn from Western art and draw inspiration in the creation of their own art. Non-West has copied Western methods in sculpture-making and painting and music-making. But Western Art cannot exist without Europeans since it is the expression of the European soul and representation of European physical forms. The Venus statue could not have existed if Europeans who looked like that hadn’t existed. If Europeans looked like Australian Aborigines, their artworks would have looked very different. So, there is a genetic and ‘spiritual’ connection between European arts and European races. And this can be said for any people and culture. Surely, Persian sculptures and paintings depict the peoples who lived there long ago. If another people were to take over Europe, they won’t feel the connection with European art and culture since they feel and look different. It’s like Europeans in Meso-America can study the artworks of indigenous peoples there and learn to appreciate Maya and Aztec stuff… but they can never feel as being part of that culture. It’s like a Hindu can go to Cameroon and study and appreciate African sculpture and art, but he cannot feel a racial or spiritual connection to those expressions and representations. Anyone can appreciate and ponder any culture around the world, but he can only lay claim to and feel direct connection to his own culture. Indeed, one might argue that every people have a duty to to their culture because, if they don’t preserve it, who will? If American Indians won’t preserve their heritage, no one is going to do it for them.
    Likewise, Europeans need to protect and preserve their own race, land, and culture. The idea that Europe should be Americanized as much as possible and then invite tons of ‘non-Europeans’ to become ‘new Europeans’ to sustain and preserve European culture is crazy. If Europeans themselves are in suicidal mode and not doing what is necessary to preserve their own civilization and culture, what makes them think others will do it for them, especially when so many of these newcomers are of low IQ, have zero appreciation for learning, and tend wallow in barbarism or savagery? (Also, due to PC and degradation of Pop Culture, Europeans lack the moral fiber, cultural confidence, and seriousness to apply on the newcomers to try harder to become civilized. But then, how can anyone become civilized in a Europe where the greatest thing is going wild at homo parades?) Also, if Europeans themselves embrace trashy and shallow Americanism, why wouldn’t the newcomers also do likewise and prefer easily digestible rap music, porn, cartoons, videogames, dumb TV shows, and Hollywood movies to European arts and culture that require time and patience to understand and appreciate?

    Globalism has turned everything generic, deracinated, bloodless, infantile, and trashy. Every people need nationalism to reconnect with race, heritage, and history. Instead of fleeing from their own nations for better material lives in the West, they need to try to make their own nations better. It’s too easy to run from problems.
    And Europeans need to face up to their own duties to their ancestor and heritages. Their main obligation must be to their own nations, not to the stupid god of ‘humanitarian super-power-ism’ or ‘virtue nazism’ that is making a total mess of Sweden, once a high-trust and low-crime society of homogeneity, history, social-democracy, and nationalism.
    Sweden as Idea and Ikea is doomed. No civilization can survive merely as an abstraction or consumer choice.

    Read More
  3. I don’t think that the United States and Russia need be enemies. But can’t we just be friends? Why do we need to be allies? Against whom? Russia’s main problem, as I see, it is with the Central Asian republics. Of what use is the United States in solving that problem. The United States’s problem is with large unassmiliable minorities. While it might be tempting to use Russians to expel Mestizoes and Muslims, we’d probably end up like 5th Century Britain–our mercenaries become our masters. Washington’s advice to avoid entangling alliances is as true today as it was then.

    Read More
  4. Kimppis says:

    1. How long is it going to take until some you get this: Russia’s population is actually growing. That has been the case for some time. One of those Russophobic myths that just doesn’t go away, huh? Western media is doing a great job on Russia, once again!

    2. Russia’s economy is roughly the same size as Germany, not Spain (by PPP). The current exchange rate is… misleading.

    It’s true that Russia is not the Soviet Union, but you’re underestimating them.

    Read More
  5. Randal says:

    Yes, Russia is only an “enemy” of the US as a result of US actions against Russia and Russia’s core security interests. This is the consequence of what I have long described as one of the great grand strategic errors of human history – US policy towards Russia after the end of the Cold War.

    Hopefully, President Trump will sound out the Russians, and tune out the Beltway hawks.

    Hopefully yes, but is it really likely?

    Only yesterday the Russians and Chinese were forced to veto a gratuitously aggressive US regime resolution that tried to gain further UN involvement in harassing the Syrian government in order to promote the overall goal of regime changing a key Russian ally. The US regime knew full well that this resolution would be vetoed – the only reason for pushing it to a vote was to try to gain a cheap propaganda score.

    For how much longer can those of us willing to give the Trump regime the benefit of the doubt keep dismissing these signs as supposedly mere sops to the crazies, and not representative of supposedly true US regime views at the very top?

    Read More
    • Replies: @in the middle
    The talmudists hate Russia because Vladimir Ivanovich Putin defeated the Talmudist oligarchs! He took their names and kicked their behind, and that, my friends is unpardonable to the Kazharian maffia Fortunately the great Putin is not afraid of any one, and that makes him a formidable adversary to the Talmudists. Unless we lose sight of the real adversary of the American people, lets examine the well known cabal i.e. Mckiller, allied to the cannibals terrorists in Syria, and his side kick Graham, as well as the 'independent' senator Joseph Lieberman, the three evil amigos, and another senator i believe his name is king, who said that he only run for the senate so Israel had more friends in the senate. So there you have it. Without these traitorous people, and their sponsors, we could be in a better state of affairs. Look at those evil creatures, always attacking President Trump, so you will know who part of the enemy is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKy8lKGx3Ng

    Here is the enemy in plain view.
    , @reiner Tor
    I agree very much, apparently.
  6. The founding fathers of the Munich Security Conference, said John McCain, would be “be alarmed by the turning away from universal values and toward old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism.”

    I think in this case I agree with (otherwise quite despicable) Mr McCain. But what does it have to do with Russia? The Russian Federation is not practicing or advocating any “ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism”, far from it. It just wants its national interests to be recognized and respected, that’s all.

    Read More
  7. @Randal
    Yes, Russia is only an "enemy" of the US as a result of US actions against Russia and Russia's core security interests. This is the consequence of what I have long described as one of the great grand strategic errors of human history - US policy towards Russia after the end of the Cold War.

    Hopefully, President Trump will sound out the Russians, and tune out the Beltway hawks.
     
    Hopefully yes, but is it really likely?

    Only yesterday the Russians and Chinese were forced to veto a gratuitously aggressive US regime resolution that tried to gain further UN involvement in harassing the Syrian government in order to promote the overall goal of regime changing a key Russian ally. The US regime knew full well that this resolution would be vetoed - the only reason for pushing it to a vote was to try to gain a cheap propaganda score.

    For how much longer can those of us willing to give the Trump regime the benefit of the doubt keep dismissing these signs as supposedly mere sops to the crazies, and not representative of supposedly true US regime views at the very top?

    The talmudists hate Russia because Vladimir Ivanovich Putin defeated the Talmudist oligarchs! He took their names and kicked their behind, and that, my friends is unpardonable to the Kazharian maffia Fortunately the great Putin is not afraid of any one, and that makes him a formidable adversary to the Talmudists. Unless we lose sight of the real adversary of the American people, lets examine the well known cabal i.e. Mckiller, allied to the cannibals terrorists in Syria, and his side kick Graham, as well as the ‘independent’ senator Joseph Lieberman, the three evil amigos, and another senator i believe his name is king, who said that he only run for the senate so Israel had more friends in the senate. So there you have it. Without these traitorous people, and their sponsors, we could be in a better state of affairs. Look at those evil creatures, always attacking President Trump, so you will know who part of the enemy is.

    Here is the enemy in plain view.

    Read More
  8. anon says: • Disclaimer

    The USA would have no quarrel with Russia at all, if the USA would just mind its own business.

    Consider what Buchanan says about China pushing the US out of the south and east China seas. But why is the USA even there to begin with?

    Read More
  9. Vinnie says:

    One of the arguments against England giving India independence was that the Indians pressing for “democracy” were Brahmans and other high caste Hindus who knew that as soon as the masses were given the right to elect governments, the Brahmans would be back in charge because the low caste voters would do whatever the Brahmans told them.

    Conversely, the Indians arguing against the English granting “democracy” to India were Westernized lower caste Hindus (and Moslems) who knew that the ONLY thing protecting them from suppression by the Brahmans was the English army.

    The general English plan was that India would get independence once the general society had been Westernized to the point that common Indians acted and thought like Western Europeans. The guess in the 1930s was that this might take another century or 2. Simply abandoning India in 1947 produced the disaster predicted by the “racists”.

    The same was of course true in Africa, where White Rhodesia was turned into the Black hell named Zimbabwe and “liberated” South Africa may have already killed the last White farmer (“Boer”), presaging famine there also.

    Read More
  10. Joe Wong says:
    @KenH

    Now McCain is not wrong. Nationalism is an idea whose time has come again. Those “old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism” do seem everywhere ascendant.
     
    Funny how the old codger McCain has absolutely no problem with "old ties of blood and race" when it concerns the Jews of Israel or LA Raza who he's spoken lovingly to on occasion. Only the stirrings of white racial identity in Europe and America that have long been dormant has the decrepit old fool to gnashing his teeth and hissing like a feral tom cat.

    Preach or proselytize for Christianity in much of the Islamic world and you are a candidate for martyrdom.
     
    What? I thought Islam was a religion of peace? Pat must be confused.

    Otherwise it seems U.S. government officials cling to a view of the Russians that dates back to the 1950's during the cold war. It's time to bury the hatchet and move forward together. An alliance with Russia is an idea whose time has finally come. I believe the two nations can achieve great things as friends and staunch allies.

    Russia may not regard itself the enemy of the USA, but USA definitely regards Russia as the sworn enemy because Russian orthodox Christianity make the Anglo and Western European an illegitimate Christian pretender and reminds them they are the barbaric ‘God-fearing’ morally defunct evil ‘the Franks’. Getting rid of Russian will make their authenticity and legitimacy as sole Christian linkage to the creator unquestionable and authoritative.

    In addition, Russia is the sole nuclear power that can put the American ambition on global full spectrum dominance in check. Russia is the prime target for the USA to remove to achieve its US Primacy doctrine, i.e. “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

    Read More
  11. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    But what will this “co-operation with Russia” that Buchanan talks about all the time really include? Russian ground troops in Syria? You think they don’t know that that’s not such a great deal for them? Or would it include granting a visa waiver to all Russian citizens to enter the US without a visa?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Russian ground troops in Syria?

    Wouldn't bother me one bit. It would mean the end of ISIS.
  12. Facts about Russia, that Buchanan gets wrong:

    she is a nation whose GDP is that of Spain and whose population of fewer than 150 million is shrinking.

    Russia’s population has been on the rise since 2009, and Russian GDP, when measured by Purchasing Power Parity, is closer to that of Germany than Spain.

    And Russia threatens no U.S. vital interest.

    Define US interest. US elite believes they are entitled to dominate the world in undisputed American hegemony. Russia is a genuine threat to that, it has shown the ability to foil American plans in Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere.

    Russia faces to her south 1.3 billion Chinese looking hungrily at resource-rich Siberia and Russia’s Far East.

    There is no evidence that China has agressive designs on Russia’s Far East, but lots of evidence that US elite eyes Ukraine.

    Read More
  13. @Randal
    Yes, Russia is only an "enemy" of the US as a result of US actions against Russia and Russia's core security interests. This is the consequence of what I have long described as one of the great grand strategic errors of human history - US policy towards Russia after the end of the Cold War.

    Hopefully, President Trump will sound out the Russians, and tune out the Beltway hawks.
     
    Hopefully yes, but is it really likely?

    Only yesterday the Russians and Chinese were forced to veto a gratuitously aggressive US regime resolution that tried to gain further UN involvement in harassing the Syrian government in order to promote the overall goal of regime changing a key Russian ally. The US regime knew full well that this resolution would be vetoed - the only reason for pushing it to a vote was to try to gain a cheap propaganda score.

    For how much longer can those of us willing to give the Trump regime the benefit of the doubt keep dismissing these signs as supposedly mere sops to the crazies, and not representative of supposedly true US regime views at the very top?

    I agree very much, apparently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    :-) The "Agree" system has been playing up for me as well. If I remember when I get back in, I'll go back to one of the posts I tried to "Agree" with a couple of days ago, and see if I'm now on record as being as enthusiastic about it as you are here about mine.
  14. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor
    I agree very much, apparently.

    :-) The “Agree” system has been playing up for me as well. If I remember when I get back in, I’ll go back to one of the posts I tried to “Agree” with a couple of days ago, and see if I’m now on record as being as enthusiastic about it as you are here about mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Before reporting it on Twitter (I’m not sure anyone read my tweet, but nevertheless I wanted to be thorough before I might make anyone look into this), I tried it once more. Then, a few hours later, I tried it again to see if it’s been fixed, and yes, it was. Now I came back to this thread and just noticed that now I can see all three.
  15. @Randal
    :-) The "Agree" system has been playing up for me as well. If I remember when I get back in, I'll go back to one of the posts I tried to "Agree" with a couple of days ago, and see if I'm now on record as being as enthusiastic about it as you are here about mine.

    Before reporting it on Twitter (I’m not sure anyone read my tweet, but nevertheless I wanted to be thorough before I might make anyone look into this), I tried it once more. Then, a few hours later, I tried it again to see if it’s been fixed, and yes, it was. Now I came back to this thread and just noticed that now I can see all three.

    Read More
  16. mtn cur says:

    Granting that Putin, like most such strongmen including ours, is an SOB, I still don’t see how we have been sandbagged into thinking this means that the Monroe doctrine should extend our police powers to the Crimea.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    When Kiev gave up it's nukes Clinton thought he could look important and gave a guarantee to Ukraine that he knew he couldn't back up. Just another stupid American promise that never should have been given. So I guess we think we have lost face because we aren't going to back up this guarantee. This is the same stupid thinking that got us into Vietnam. The difference is Russia isn't North Vietnam.
  17. In Nuristan Province in U.S.-liberated Afghanistan…bla bla bla…

    Afghan family values.

    Do you really wanna play the anecdote game, Paddy? Is that the “Christian” thing to do?

    American family values.:

    Cops: [ American] Man had long-term sexual relationship with dog

    The unnamed family member, “could not take it anymore” after seeing Hubbard take the dog to his room to have sex with it. She reportedly told deputies the abuse had happened more than 100 times over the last three years.

    http://www.fox5ny.com/news/229009233-story

    Read More
  18. MarkinLA says:
    @Anonymous
    But what will this "co-operation with Russia" that Buchanan talks about all the time really include? Russian ground troops in Syria? You think they don't know that that's not such a great deal for them? Or would it include granting a visa waiver to all Russian citizens to enter the US without a visa?

    Russian ground troops in Syria?

    Wouldn’t bother me one bit. It would mean the end of ISIS.

    Read More
  19. MarkinLA says:
    @mtn cur
    Granting that Putin, like most such strongmen including ours, is an SOB, I still don't see how we have been sandbagged into thinking this means that the Monroe doctrine should extend our police powers to the Crimea.

    When Kiev gave up it’s nukes Clinton thought he could look important and gave a guarantee to Ukraine that he knew he couldn’t back up. Just another stupid American promise that never should have been given. So I guess we think we have lost face because we aren’t going to back up this guarantee. This is the same stupid thinking that got us into Vietnam. The difference is Russia isn’t North Vietnam.

    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 Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored