The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Moral Supremacy and Mr. Putin
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Is Donald Trump to be allowed to craft a foreign policy based on the ideas on which he ran and won the presidency in 2016?

Our foreign policy elite’s answer appears to be a thunderous no.

Case in point: U.S. relations with Russia.

During the campaign Trump was clear. He would seek closer ties with Russia and cooperate with Vladimir Putin in smashing al-Qaida and ISIS terrorists in Syria, and leave Putin’s ally Bashar Assad alone.

With this diplomatic deal in mind, President Trump has resisted efforts to get him to call Putin a “thug” or a “murderer.”

Asked during his taped Super Bowl interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly whether he respected Putin, Trump said that, as a leader, yes.

O’Reilly pressed, “But he’s a killer, though. Putin’s a killer.”

To which Trump replied, “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent?”

While his reply was clumsy, Trump’s intent was commendable.

If he is to negotiate a modus vivendi with a nation with an arsenal of nuclear weapons sufficient to end life as we know it in the USA, probably not a good idea to start off by calling its leader a “killer.”

Mitch McConnell rushed to assure America he believes Putin is a “thug” and any suggestion of a moral equivalence between America and Russia is outrageous.

Apparently referring to a polonium poisoning of KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko, Marco Rubio tweeted, “When has a Democratic political activist ever been poisoned by the GOP? Or vice versa?”

Yet, as we beat our chests in celebration of our own moral superiority over other nations and peoples, consider what Trump is trying to do here, and who is really behaving as a statesmen, and who is acting like an infantile and self-righteous prig.

When President Eisenhower invited Nikita Khrushchev to the United States, did Ike denounce him as the “Butcher of Budapest” for his massacre of the Hungarian patriots in 1956?

Did President Nixon, while negotiating his trip to Peking to end decades of hostility, speak the unvarnished truth about Mao Zedong — that he was a greater mass murderer than Stalin?

While Nixon was in Peking, Mao was conducting his infamous Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that resulted in millions of deaths, a years-long pogrom that dwarfed the two-day Kristallnacht. Yet Mao’s crimes went unmentioned in Nixon’s toast to America and China starting a “long march” together.

John McCain calls Putin a KGB thug, “a murderer, and a killer.”

Yet, Yuri Andropov, the Soviet ambassador in Budapest who engineered the slaughter of the Hungarian rebels with Russian tanks, became head of the KGB. And when he rose to general secretary of the Communist Party, Ronald Reagan wanted to talk to him, as he had wanted to talk to every Soviet leader.

Why? Because Reagan believed the truly moral thing he could do was negotiate to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

He finally met Gorbachev in 1985, when the USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots.

The problem with some of our noisier exponents of “American exceptionalism” is that they lack Reagan’s moral maturity.

Undeniably, we were on God’s side in World War II and the Cold War. But were we ourselves without sin in those just struggles?

Was it not at least morally problematic what we did to Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki where hundreds of thousands of women and children were blasted and burned to death?

How many innocent Iraqis have perished in the 13 years of war we began, based on falsified or fake evidence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction?

In Russia, there have been murders of journalists and dissidents. Yes, and President Rodrigo Duterte, our Philippine ally, has apparently condoned the deaths of thousands of drug dealers and users since last summer.

The Philippine Catholic Church calls it “a reign of terror.”

Should we sever our treaty ties to the Duterte regime?

Have there been any extrajudicial killings in the Egypt of our ally Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi since he overthrew the elected government?

Has our Turkish ally, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, killed no innocents in his sweeping repression since last summer’s attempted coup?

Some of us remember a Cold War in which Gen. Augusto Pinochet dealt summarily with our common enemies in Chile, and when the Savak of our ally the Shah of Iran was not a 501(c)(3) organization.

Sen. Rubio notwithstanding, the CIA has not been a complete stranger to “wet” operations or “terminating with extreme prejudice.”

Was it not LBJ who said of the Kennedys, who had arranged multiple assassination attempts of Fidel Castro, that they had been “operating a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean”?

If Trump’s talking to Putin can help end the bloodshed in Ukraine or Syria, it would appear to be at least as ethical an act as pulpiteering about our moral superiority on the Sunday talk shows.

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: Donald Trump, Russia 
Hide 72 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. anon says: • Disclaimer

    In a way it shows just how much of a problem the media is now becoming. Would ANY reporter have said to FDR in an interview listened to by millions, that Stalin was a ‘killer’? Here in Canada you see hundreds of people rushing to take ‘selfies’ with Justin Trudeau, like he was a rock star. This is not statesmanship.

    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/moral-supremacy-and-mr-putin/#comment-1757557
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. MEexpert says:

    American Moral superiority? Let us see.

    America is quick to try leaders of other nations for crimes against humanity (or their own citizens). Mostly from the African nations. They wanted to try Saddam for war crimes. Same for Assad and people from East European countries, and the list goes on and on.
    What about United States?

    1. Should Abraham Lincoln be tried as a war criminal for thousands of civilians who were killed during the “civil” war? The US wants to do it to Assad.

    2. What about Harry Truman for dropping Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Should he be labeled as killer and tried for crimes against humanity?

    3. Bill Clinton killed hundreds of civilians in Kosovo and Bosnia. He also killed 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions. A killing that his Secretary of State proudly pronounced as “worth it.” Aren’t they war criminals?

    4. George W. Bush killed many civilians indiscriminately in Afghanistan, in Iraq with ”shock and awe”, and in Pakistan.

    5. The Nobel Peace prize winner, Barack Obama killed thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. He killed American citizens like Anwar Al-Awlaki, his son and others without due process. Osama bin Laden was executed without due process as well. He deserved to die but if we are going to be of high moral standards and criticize Putin than we cannot kill people at our whims.

    6. What about the My Lai massacre? Wasn’t that a war crime. Only low level officers were tried. Why not the US leadership?

    7. US is also complicit in murders of Palestinians and Iranian carried out by Israel.
    So, if anybody is a “THUG,” murderer, or killer it is the US leadership.

    Israel has killed in various ways thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians in what they call “self-defense.” Isn’t that what Hitler was doing when he killed Jews in Germany. He was killing them in self-defense. We tried German officers as war criminals even though they were carrying out orders.

    Bill O’Reilly and the Fox news are the biggest purveyors of “Fake news.” Bill O’Reilly can say with straight face that Saudi Arabia was not included in Trump’s list of Muslim Countries because she was fighting Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Also, the Houthis are Iran’s proxies who fired on American vessel. He, Hannity and others also spread the lie that Iran has the nuclear weapons, the US intelligence agencies’ reports notwithstanding.

    Another big lie is the $1.5 billion that Iran received as a result of the Nuclear Deal. US did not just give that money to Iran. That money belonged to Iran that the US had confiscated earlier. It was just released because of the deal. But both O’Reilly and Trump lied on the national TV that Iran got away with that money without giving anything in return.

    Are we going to just renege all the deals and agreements that Obama made? Is that going to be the norm that successive regimes will negate all the previous agreements. Will countries trust the US leadership make deal for the United States in the future, knowing full well that the new regime may discard that agreement.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mouth Agape

    Isn’t that what Hitler was doing when he killed Jews in Germany. He was killing them in self-defense.
     
    Huh?!

    Are you being facetious?

    , @Minnesota Mary
    Wow! What a list! Thank you for telling it like it is. I could add some more heinous acts to your list, like the American sponsored assassination of our allies, the Diem brothers in Viet Nam.

    Thank you for exposing American hypocrisy and hubris.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Cyrano says:

    He finally met Gorbachev in 1985, when the USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots.

    That’s just beautiful. In fact why stop there, why not go all the way like Reagan did: “The mujaheedins are moral equivalents of our founding fathers”. Does that mean that by extension Al-qaeda members are moral equivalents of the founding fathers?

    Anyhow, about American exceptionalism, is it just me or is there a slight contradiction when the Americans say that we are all equal and yet they are better than anyone else (exceptional). How do you reconcile those diametrically opposite statements. My interpretation is like this: We (The Americans) are so better than anyone else that we can afford the generosity of calling the rest of the world equal, although we don’t really mean it, but we still deserve and expect gratitude for such generosity. I call that the mother of all hypocrisy.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @Minnesota Mary
    American Exceptionalism is really national narcissism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Leaders of countries for which there is a thirst for “regime change” are routinely demonized as thugs, dictators, murderers, Hitler, Stalin. To the neo-conmen their real sin is resisting satrapy and absorption into empire.

    Since ours became a managed democracy, an inverted totalitarianism of corporate oligarchy, it should be no surprise a bought punditry blows hard into the mouthpiece of a mass propaganda bullhorn.

    It seems manufacturing public opinion out of nothing mostly works, with fifty-five per cent of the public believing Russia or the non-existent Soviet Union is our implacable enemy.

    The level of nuance, let alone moral maturity, is not high in an adult public which has an appetite for juvenile American super hero comic book movie blockbusters. The rest of the world, according to Marvel, is a cartoon cast of super villains for our military army of one Exceptionals to vanquish with displays of shock and awe digital effects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Exudd1
    Well said Fran. Great comment. Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. D. K. says:

    ***

    Michael Corleone: “My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.”

    Kay Adams: “Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don’t have men killed.”

    Michael Corleone: “Oh. Who’s being naive, Kay?”

    “The Godfather” [film version (1972)]

    ***

    “American Exceptionalism” in action:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program

    ***

    To the Democratic Party’s “loyal opposition,” under Minority Leaders Schumer and Pelosi:

    Who murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich, last July, and what caused Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to offer such a hefty private reward for information in the (still-unsolved) murder case?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    My favorite scene from the whole movie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Maybe Rubio meant the poisoning of Kara-Murza that might have just happened:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/world/europe/russia-vladimir-kara-murza-putin.html?_r=0

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. We were not on God’s side in WWII. We were on the side of the Bolsheviks that slaughtered millions of Christians. As the architects of Israel we were on the side of what Jesus Christ referred to in Revelations 2:9 as ‘the Synagogue Of Satan’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Cephalus says:

    Horrible interview. O’Really, who does he think he is? An American President put on the grill by a political …… Never seen that before! You may hate and disdain Mr Trump as a person, but as the President of the United he merits some respect! Trump is a newcomer that needs advice and good teachers, we all know it, but please stop giving him lessons in public.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Randal says:

    Mitch McConnell rushed to assure America he believes Putin is a “thug” and any suggestion of a moral equivalence between America and Russia is outrageous.

    McConnell’s right, of course (never thought I’d need to say that).

    For the past nearly three decades the US has been the strategic aggressor, waging repeated interventionist wars of aggression and seeking to gain still more power over other nations for its rulers by subversion and propaganda and to impose its globalist and socially liberal democratist ideological dogmas on other nations, whereas Russia has been on the strategic defensive, pushed back and back and fighting when it has to in order to try to hold the line. This is the really fundamental moral difference between the actions of the two states.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Mitch McConnell rushed to assure America he believes Putin is a “thug”
     
    According to CBS news, McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao, was paid $50,000 for a five-minute speech before MEK ---

    [Chao] gave paid speeches for organizations linked to an Iranian exile group that killed Americans before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, ran donation scams and saw its members set themselves on fire over the arrest of their leader.

    Elaine Chao, confirmed this week as Mr. Trump’s transportation secretary, received $50,000 in 2015 for a five-minute speech to the political wing of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, previously called a “cult-like” terrorist group by the State Department. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani also was paid an unknown sum to talk to the group, known as the MEK.
     

    MEK has since been de-listed from terror list, either on the basis of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend," or the simpler, "Thugs pay better." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/21/iran-mek-group-removed-us-terrorism-list MEK decision: multimillion-dollar campaign led to removal from terror list

    Not infrequently MEK members, identifiable by their yellow shirts, appear at US senate and congressional hearings when foreign policy is discussed.

    ----

    related to Phil Giraldi's essay on media presstitution http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/all-the-news-that-fits-the-agenda/ -- the above CBS report was cast as another criticism of Trump.

    What a tangled web -- it's okay to vilify MEK if it also vilifies Trump, but if the story's purpose is to vilify Iran, then MEK is the good guy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. How easy it is for crooked U.S. politicians and presstitues to accuse Putin of murder without a shred of evidence.
    As for Mr. Buchanan’s assertion that the U.S. was on the right side of history during WWII, I recommend that he spends some time on historic revisionism. Mike King’s ” The Bad War” might be a good start.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "As for Mr. Buchanan’s assertion that the U.S. was on the right side of history during WWII..."

    Japan went totally wrong when it invaded China, and Germany lost all moral bearing when it attacked the USSR. It lost most of its moral bearing when it invaded Poland, but then, it could be argued Soviets took the other half and were just as brutal as the Nazis.

    But when Nazi Germany invaded Russia to wipe out 10s of millions and reduce the rest of the population to helot status, Nazism was a moral zero and had to be wiped off the map.

    The trickier question is, "Was the US on the right side of history in The Cold War?" The answer is tricky because it was certainly YES during the Cold War but maybe NO considering the aftereffects of the End of the Cold War(or End of History).

    During the Cold War, despite some decadence and excess, the US and EU had more sense, freedom, liberty, and dignity than drab, dreary, and repressive communist nations. So, only a moral idiot would have preferred communist totalitarianism over capitalist pluralism.

    But after the Cold War ended, the West went totally batty with neo-imperialism, globalism, homomania, Negromania, pornomania, and increasingly now, pedomania(as sex culture is peddled even to little children).
    Also, the West has become totally schizo. White people say, "We suck, we are worthless, and we have NO right to deny mass immigration into our lands because that would be 'racist'", but they also support a foreign policy that says, "We white nations have every right to invade, bomb, and smash other nations and to force homomania and our culture on them because WE are 'more evolved'."

    Imagine Bill and Bob. Bill is for freedom, and Bob is for control. There's a cold war between Bill and Bob, and we naturally side with Bill.
    Suppose Bob finally concedes and says Bill is the winner with better idea of freedom.
    We say, "Ahhh, the end of history. Bill was the good guy and had the right idea. And Bob should now emulate Bill."

    But as soon as Bill wins, he turns rotten, crazy, nutsoid, and loony tunes.
    As for Bob, he listened to Bill's advice and got burned badly, and so he decided he must forge his own meaning of freedom cuz Bill's brand of freedom has gotten so crazy after his victory.

    Likewise, the West was right in the Cold War fight but wrong in the Cold War victory.

    And given where Western Europe is going with its 'western values' triumphalism --- allowing masses of darkies to take over Europe --- , one wonders if Europe would have been better off if the Soviets took all of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. “Undeniably, we were on God’s side in World War II and the Cold War.”

    Yeah, right. The Angel Gabriel, with a flaming sword, appeared to you and told you that. And lo, the sound of his voice was mighty, as the sound of thunder, and thou didst tremble greatly, for thou wast moved in thy bowels most sorely.

    Now we know why so many of our most intelligent scientists are nonbelievers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. All I can say is, great article by Mr. Buchanan (of course I usually agree with him – 95% of the time – but this was especially well-written.)!

    Does anyone know if Pat responds ever on here (unz.com)? I would think not as he is a lower-energy pundit than, I don’t know, say, Steve Sailer ;-} I wish this guy had gone farther in his 1992 campaign.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Dwright says:

    From the movie Road to Perdition:

    Michael Sullivan: He murdered Annie and Peter!
    John Rooney: There are only murderers in this room! Michael! Open your eyes! This is the life we chose, the life we lead. And there is only one guarantee: none of us will see heaven.

    Yes Mr. President, there are a lot of killers and the U.S. has no shortage, even that peace prize winning mistake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Lit Dog says:

    I’m sure someone in the Trump administration reads Pat, so I hope some of Pat’s wisdom sinks in.

    Off topic, but still related to Trump’s relationship with Putin, I have a satirical piece about the Super Bowl and the triumph of Trump’s team. Using the unreliable narrator technique, it blends the Kapernick protests, the pro-immigration commercials, and the unusual case where the winning team never holds a lead.

    http://www.DukeDougherty.com/remarks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Diogenes says:

    The previous commenters, except Cephelus, did not address the real issue and that is the role of the MSN “talking heads”.

    The real issue is the likes of O’Reilly and his ilk. Why is it that the America Public Media are populated by such ignorant, disgusting, hostile, opinionated propagandists like O’Reilly?

    Simple, it’s because they are capable and charismatic sophists.

    OK, then why are Americans so susceptible to the influence of disingenuous media personalities?

    Simple, because they are ignorant, gullible, uncritical, to trusting and have poor judgment skills.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    "Why is it that the America Public Media are populated by such ignorant, disgusting, hostile, opinionated propagandists like O’Reilly?"

    Because if you are not that way, then you get fired by your wealthy bosses who's agenda has nothing to do with objective reporting of the news.

    So the proles are fed garbage and they have no other easy source of information, so that is what they believe.
    , @The Scalpel
    "Why is it that the America Public Media are populated by such ignorant, disgusting, hostile, opinionated propagandists like O’Reilly?"

    Because if you are not that way, then you get fired by your wealthy bosses who's agenda has nothing to do with objective reporting of the news.

    So the proles are fed garbage and they have no other easy source of information, so that is what they believe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Randal

    Mitch McConnell rushed to assure America he believes Putin is a “thug” and any suggestion of a moral equivalence between America and Russia is outrageous.
     
    McConnell's right, of course (never thought I'd need to say that).

    For the past nearly three decades the US has been the strategic aggressor, waging repeated interventionist wars of aggression and seeking to gain still more power over other nations for its rulers by subversion and propaganda and to impose its globalist and socially liberal democratist ideological dogmas on other nations, whereas Russia has been on the strategic defensive, pushed back and back and fighting when it has to in order to try to hold the line. This is the really fundamental moral difference between the actions of the two states.

    Mitch McConnell rushed to assure America he believes Putin is a “thug”

    According to CBS news, McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, was paid $50,000 for a five-minute speech before MEK —

    [Chao] gave paid speeches for organizations linked to an Iranian exile group that killed Americans before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, ran donation scams and saw its members set themselves on fire over the arrest of their leader.

    Elaine Chao, confirmed this week as Mr. Trump’s transportation secretary, received $50,000 in 2015 for a five-minute speech to the political wing of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, previously called a “cult-like” terrorist group by the State Department. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani also was paid an unknown sum to talk to the group, known as the MEK.

    MEK has since been de-listed from terror list, either on the basis of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” or the simpler, “Thugs pay better.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/21/iran-mek-group-removed-us-terrorism-list MEK decision: multimillion-dollar campaign led to removal from terror list

    Not infrequently MEK members, identifiable by their yellow shirts, appear at US senate and congressional hearings when foreign policy is discussed.

    —-

    related to Phil Giraldi’s essay on media presstitution http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/all-the-news-that-fits-the-agenda/ — the above CBS report was cast as another criticism of Trump.

    What a tangled web — it’s okay to vilify MEK if it also vilifies Trump, but if the story’s purpose is to vilify Iran, then MEK is the good guy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Corvinus says:

    Patrick’s essay is riddled with contradictions. Not his best work.

    While I understand that it is not politically wise for Trump to open up with negotiations with Putin by outright calling him a thug and a murderer, Trump is beholden to ensure that America comes first, which requires him in some fashion to call out Putin’s past that contradicts the values that Trump has sworn to uphold.

    “In Russia, there have been murders of journalists and dissidents. Yes, and President Rodrigo Duterte, our Philippine ally, has apparently condoned the deaths of thousands of drug dealers and users since last summer. The Philippine Catholic Church calls it “a reign of terror.” Should we sever our treaty ties to the Duterte regime?”

    Under the foreign affairs policy of President Carter, we are morally obligated as a country, and certainly as Christians, had due process not been strictly adhered to.

    “The problem with some of our noisier exponents of “American exceptionalism” is that they lack Reagan’s moral maturity.”

    Was Reagan demonstrating his sageness when under his administration it broke several Congressional laws and broke his pledge not to engage with terrorists in the Iran-Contra Affair?

    “Did President Nixon, while negotiating his trip to Peking to end decades of hostility, speak the unvarnished truth about Mao Zedong — that he was a greater mass murderer than Stalin?”

    He didn’t have to go on record, since the record spoke for itself. Do not Christians fight against evil at every turn regardless if the situation becomes “unpleasant”?

    “Mitch McConnell rushed to assure America he believes Putin is a “thug” and any suggestion of a moral equivalence between America and Russia is outrageous.”

    Absolutely.

    “Yet, as we beat our chests in celebration of our own moral superiority over other nations and peoples, consider what Trump is trying to do here, and who is really behaving as a statesmen, and who is acting like an infantile and self-righteous prig.”

    You of all people, Patrick, ought to know better.

    “When President Eisenhower invited Nikita Khrushchev to the United States, did Ike denounce him as the “Butcher of Budapest” for his massacre of the Hungarian patriots in 1956?”

    Again, he didn’t have to, it was already known.

    And, apparently what Putin wants, he gets.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/02/05/robert-kraft-hopes-trump-can-help-retrieve-super-bowl-ring-putin-pilfered/?utm_term=.c60ad925e65b

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Again, he didn’t have to, it was already known.
     
    If you have information the rest of us don't, by all means make it known.

    If Trump has information the rest of us don't, by all means let him leak it to the press, if he so wishes.

    If neither of these are the case, then everything relevant is "already known".

    Whatever the case, the President of the U.S. has better things to do, in 2017 as in 1956, than to shout denunciations at his counterparts overseas.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Trump is beholden to ensure that America comes first, which requires him in some fashion to call out Putin’s past that contradicts the values that Trump has sworn to uphold.
     
    Poppycock. Putting America first means, most of all, putting American interests first. Our values should be about how we run our own sovereign country, not some scheming 'new world order'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. It’s silly to argue against the reasoning of people demonizing Putin. They are not reasoning. They are lying.

    During the campaign Trump was clear. He would seek closer ties with Russia and cooperate with Vladimir Putin in smashing al-Qaida and ISIS terrorists in Syria, and leave Putin’s ally Bashar Assad alone.

    I support Trump because he is the enemy of my enemies. And specifically because he says he wants a working relationship with Russia. Trumps ignorant belligerence toward Iran however means he will not have a working relationship with Putin. Trumps only friends are AIPAC, The Military and the deplorables who elected him. He will lose the latter if he continues to demonize and threaten Iran. If Trump does not repatriate his legions and abandon his mercenaries I, for one, will turn against him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    It’s silly to argue against the reasoning of people demonizing Putin. They are not reasoning. They are lying.
     
    Sweet. That is pure genius. Well put, Sir!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. nsa says:

    The interview should have been titled : the Cuck and the Butt Boy. According to the divorce proceedings, Cuck Reilly’s wife was bonking a NYC cop and Cuck never summoned up the testosterone to confront the cop…might get hurt. But Cuck did slap the wife around a little according to the eye witness daughter’s testimony. As to Trump, it only took two weeks to come out as just another Jooie Butt Boy……. filling the swamp to overflowing, not draining it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Exudd1 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Leaders of countries for which there is a thirst for “regime change” are routinely demonized as thugs, dictators, murderers, Hitler, Stalin. To the neo-conmen their real sin is resisting satrapy and absorption into empire.

    Since ours became a managed democracy, an inverted totalitarianism of corporate oligarchy, it should be no surprise a bought punditry blows hard into the mouthpiece of a mass propaganda bullhorn.

    It seems manufacturing public opinion out of nothing mostly works, with fifty-five per cent of the public believing Russia or the non-existent Soviet Union is our implacable enemy.

    The level of nuance, let alone moral maturity, is not high in an adult public which has an appetite for juvenile American super hero comic book movie blockbusters. The rest of the world, according to Marvel, is a cartoon cast of super villains for our military army of one Exceptionals to vanquish with displays of shock and awe digital effects.

    Well said Fran. Great comment. Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    Patrick's essay is riddled with contradictions. Not his best work.

    While I understand that it is not politically wise for Trump to open up with negotiations with Putin by outright calling him a thug and a murderer, Trump is beholden to ensure that America comes first, which requires him in some fashion to call out Putin's past that contradicts the values that Trump has sworn to uphold.

    "In Russia, there have been murders of journalists and dissidents. Yes, and President Rodrigo Duterte, our Philippine ally, has apparently condoned the deaths of thousands of drug dealers and users since last summer. The Philippine Catholic Church calls it “a reign of terror.” Should we sever our treaty ties to the Duterte regime?"

    Under the foreign affairs policy of President Carter, we are morally obligated as a country, and certainly as Christians, had due process not been strictly adhered to.

    "The problem with some of our noisier exponents of “American exceptionalism” is that they lack Reagan’s moral maturity."

    Was Reagan demonstrating his sageness when under his administration it broke several Congressional laws and broke his pledge not to engage with terrorists in the Iran-Contra Affair?

    "Did President Nixon, while negotiating his trip to Peking to end decades of hostility, speak the unvarnished truth about Mao Zedong — that he was a greater mass murderer than Stalin?"

    He didn't have to go on record, since the record spoke for itself. Do not Christians fight against evil at every turn regardless if the situation becomes "unpleasant"?

    "Mitch McConnell rushed to assure America he believes Putin is a “thug” and any suggestion of a moral equivalence between America and Russia is outrageous."

    Absolutely.

    "Yet, as we beat our chests in celebration of our own moral superiority over other nations and peoples, consider what Trump is trying to do here, and who is really behaving as a statesmen, and who is acting like an infantile and self-righteous prig."

    You of all people, Patrick, ought to know better.

    "When President Eisenhower invited Nikita Khrushchev to the United States, did Ike denounce him as the “Butcher of Budapest” for his massacre of the Hungarian patriots in 1956?"

    Again, he didn't have to, it was already known.


    And, apparently what Putin wants, he gets.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/02/05/robert-kraft-hopes-trump-can-help-retrieve-super-bowl-ring-putin-pilfered/?utm_term=.c60ad925e65b

    Again, he didn’t have to, it was already known.

    If you have information the rest of us don’t, by all means make it known.

    If Trump has information the rest of us don’t, by all means let him leak it to the press, if he so wishes.

    If neither of these are the case, then everything relevant is “already known”.

    Whatever the case, the President of the U.S. has better things to do, in 2017 as in 1956, than to shout denunciations at his counterparts overseas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. ussr andy says:

    I think O’Reilly was implying that Putin is personally offing journos and rivals. I think the way to counter this was to ask him to back up his er, opinion, with evidence or stfu, and not even get into a moral debate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @MEexpert
    American Moral superiority? Let us see.

    America is quick to try leaders of other nations for crimes against humanity (or their own citizens). Mostly from the African nations. They wanted to try Saddam for war crimes. Same for Assad and people from East European countries, and the list goes on and on.
    What about United States?

    1. Should Abraham Lincoln be tried as a war criminal for thousands of civilians who were killed during the “civil” war? The US wants to do it to Assad.

    2. What about Harry Truman for dropping Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Should he be labeled as killer and tried for crimes against humanity?

    3. Bill Clinton killed hundreds of civilians in Kosovo and Bosnia. He also killed 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions. A killing that his Secretary of State proudly pronounced as “worth it.” Aren’t they war criminals?

    4. George W. Bush killed many civilians indiscriminately in Afghanistan, in Iraq with ”shock and awe”, and in Pakistan.

    5. The Nobel Peace prize winner, Barack Obama killed thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. He killed American citizens like Anwar Al-Awlaki, his son and others without due process. Osama bin Laden was executed without due process as well. He deserved to die but if we are going to be of high moral standards and criticize Putin than we cannot kill people at our whims.

    6. What about the My Lai massacre? Wasn’t that a war crime. Only low level officers were tried. Why not the US leadership?

    7. US is also complicit in murders of Palestinians and Iranian carried out by Israel.
    So, if anybody is a “THUG,” murderer, or killer it is the US leadership.

    Israel has killed in various ways thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians in what they call “self-defense.” Isn't that what Hitler was doing when he killed Jews in Germany. He was killing them in self-defense. We tried German officers as war criminals even though they were carrying out orders.

    Bill O’Reilly and the Fox news are the biggest purveyors of “Fake news.” Bill O’Reilly can say with straight face that Saudi Arabia was not included in Trump’s list of Muslim Countries because she was fighting Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Also, the Houthis are Iran’s proxies who fired on American vessel. He, Hannity and others also spread the lie that Iran has the nuclear weapons, the US intelligence agencies’ reports notwithstanding.

    Another big lie is the $1.5 billion that Iran received as a result of the Nuclear Deal. US did not just give that money to Iran. That money belonged to Iran that the US had confiscated earlier. It was just released because of the deal. But both O’Reilly and Trump lied on the national TV that Iran got away with that money without giving anything in return.

    Are we going to just renege all the deals and agreements that Obama made? Is that going to be the norm that successive regimes will negate all the previous agreements. Will countries trust the US leadership make deal for the United States in the future, knowing full well that the new regime may discard that agreement.?

    Isn’t that what Hitler was doing when he killed Jews in Germany. He was killing them in self-defense.

    Huh?!

    Are you being facetious?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    Not at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Renoman says:

    You can’t run any large nation without killin a lotta people, it’s how the World is run and be sure that a whole lotta them need killin. Putin has made some good progress in the World, he’s picked Russia out of the muck and done more to straighten out the Middle east in 6 months than America has done, well ever really. America has done little except make a giant bloody mess pretty well everywhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Recall Raskolnikov's first encounter with Porfiry, after the latter revealed to R. that his paper on the psychology of the criminal had been published (Part III, ch V):

    [Porfiry:] '. . .an idea at the end of the article which I regret to say you merely suggested without working it out clearly. There is, if you recollect, a suggestion that there are certain persons who can -- that is, not precisely are able to, but have a perfect right to commit breaches of morality and crimes, and that the law is not for them.’

    Raskolnikov smiled at the exaggerated and intentional distortion of his idea.

    ‘What? What do you mean? A right to crime? But not because of the influence of environment?’ Razumihin inquired with some alarm even.

    ‘No, not exactly because of it,’ answered Porfiry. ‘In his article all men are divided into ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary.’ Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary. That was your idea, if I am not mistaken?’

    ‘What do you mean? That can’t be right?’ Razumihin muttered in bewilderment.

    Raskolnikov smiled again. He saw the point at once, and knew where they wanted to drive him. He decided to take up the challenge.

    ‘That wasn’t quite my contention,’ he began simply and modestly. ‘Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly; perhaps, if you like, perfectly so.’ (It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.) ‘The only difference is that I don’t contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right ... that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep ... certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). You say that my article isn’t definite; I am ready to make it as clear as I can. Perhaps I am right in
    thinking you want me to; very well.
    I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound ... to eliminate the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all ... well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed—often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law—were of use to their cause. It’s remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals—more or less, of course. Otherwise it’s hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can’t submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it.

    You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before.

    As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it’s somewhat arbitrary, but I don’t insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word. There are, of course, innumerable sub- divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that’s their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood—that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that.

    It’s only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question).

    There’s no need for such anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right, they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less).
    The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist. In fact, all have equal rights with me—and vive la guerre éternelle
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Rurik says:

    and any suggestion of a moral equivalence between America and Russia is outrageous.

    wow, I actually agree with Mitch McConnell

    Marco Rubio tweeted, “When has a Democratic political activist ever been poisoned by the GOP? Or vice versa?”

    there’s far more reason for thinking Seth Rich was taken out by the ZUSA PTB than any evidence (none) linking Putin to Litvinenko

    as we beat our chests in celebration of our own moral superiority over other nations and peoples, consider what Trump is trying to do here, and who is really behaving as a statesmen, and who is acting like an infantile and self-righteous prig.

    PIG!

    say it Pat, it’s liberating! War Pigs!

    murderous, treasonous, chicken-hawk liars and greedy little war pigs with their porcine faces dripping with $lop from the trough.

    John McCain calls Putin

    I know there’s no God, because if there was a God, then John McBloodstain would have been the one left in Vietnam to the tender mercies of the Viet Cong, and not all those other men, a million times more worthy than McStain, who if anyone deserved to suffer in a cage for their rest of his vile and rotten life, it would be none other than our most loathsome citizen ever to waste air since the dawn of this nation. How can there be a God when John McCain lives and Michael Hastings is dead?

    Undeniably, we were on God’s side in World War II and the Cold War.

    kind of a contradiction there Pat. It was our actions during and after WWII (like Operation Keelhaul) that unleashed the Soviet Fiend on the necks of Eastern Europe for generations. We should have let the Nazis (helped them in fact!) make short work of the Soviets, and then put the Nazis in their place.

    We created the ‘evil empire’, by siding with Stalin and then handing over Eastern Europe to his genocidal ravages. Patton saw that, and that’s why they killed him too.

    Was it not at least morally problematic what we did to Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki where hundreds of thousands of women and children were blasted and burned to death?

    particularly Dresden, since the war was effectively over, and the city was overflowing with civilian refugees fleeing the Red Army Rapists. What we did in Dresden, and why, is a monstrous stain upon our nation and it’s murderous, demonic leadership.

    Trump is right, we have no right to preen our ‘moral superiority’. Ha! Hardly. Especially today, when we’re waging aggressive wars all over the planet, mass-murdering men, women and children and terrorizing entire regions with our ‘terror drones’, that assassinate from the sky. Trump is not only right, but O’Rielly should be punched in the face for his efrontry to all human decency and honestly. He’s a rotten little liar for the neocons, as he pretends to ‘look out for the folks”. He’s Cicero’s traitor, who ‘wears our face’, … yet “He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

    That’s O’Rielly all right. A sinister tool of the oligarchs pretending to be ‘one of the folks’, as he lies us all into more wars for fun and profit. May he rot in hell.

    If Trump’s talking to Putin can help end the bloodshed in Ukraine or Syria, it would appear to be at least as ethical an act as pulpiteering about our moral superiority

    the irony is that it is because Putin is trying to stop the killing and mayhem that he’s earning the ire of the blood-spattered Fiend. Who then in pure Orwellian fashion, call him the killer. That’s like Jeffrey Dahmer accusing someone of murder for eating a hamburger.

    But by keeping the level of hypocrisy so far over the top, that the hubris is beyond the pale, it reinforces the meme that when the exceptional ZUSA murders people, they had it coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    greedy little war pigs with their porcine faces dripping with $lop from the trough.
     
    in case anyone wants a case in point..


    http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_11/1465716/congress_republicans-jpeg-0cf8d_956a153292914f018fd34367874268d7.nbcnews-fp-1240-520.jpg

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/T-pJMLFFJdk/maxresdefault.jpg

    'porcine faced chicken hawks' is not an everyday expression

    I just wanted to provide some context ;)

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FCHig2VKQDk/maxresdefault.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Diogenes
    The previous commenters, except Cephelus, did not address the real issue and that is the role of the MSN "talking heads".

    The real issue is the likes of O’Reilly and his ilk. Why is it that the America Public Media are populated by such ignorant, disgusting, hostile, opinionated propagandists like O’Reilly?

    Simple, it's because they are capable and charismatic sophists.

    OK, then why are Americans so susceptible to the influence of disingenuous media personalities?

    Simple, because they are ignorant, gullible, uncritical, to trusting and have poor judgment skills.

    “Why is it that the America Public Media are populated by such ignorant, disgusting, hostile, opinionated propagandists like O’Reilly?”

    Because if you are not that way, then you get fired by your wealthy bosses who’s agenda has nothing to do with objective reporting of the news.

    So the proles are fed garbage and they have no other easy source of information, so that is what they believe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    So the proles are fed garbage and they have no other easy source of information, so that is what they believe.
     
    Nonsense. They have the internet now. Anyone who is still ignorant in this day and age is ignorant by choice. If someone is so lazy that he chooses to get all of his 'news' from TV, then he deserves what he gets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Why I like Putin:

    From: “It is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural and national self-determination” (RT, Sept. 2013)

    However, it is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation [Russia] with a multi-ethnic population. In order to maintain the nation’s unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.

    https://www.rt.com/politics/official-word/putin-valdai-national-idea-142/

    From YouTube (same conference):

    We see that many euro-atlantic States (the West ) have taken the way where they deny or reject their own roots, including their Christian roots which form the basis of Western Civilization…. And these countries try to force this model onto other countries, globally. I am deeply convinced that this is a direct way to the degradation and primitivization (of culture)…. One has to respect the right of every minority to self-determination, but at the same time there cannot and must not be any doubt about the rights of the majority.

    I’m not even Christian–rather Buddhist, but I share his thoughts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Diogenes
    The previous commenters, except Cephelus, did not address the real issue and that is the role of the MSN "talking heads".

    The real issue is the likes of O’Reilly and his ilk. Why is it that the America Public Media are populated by such ignorant, disgusting, hostile, opinionated propagandists like O’Reilly?

    Simple, it's because they are capable and charismatic sophists.

    OK, then why are Americans so susceptible to the influence of disingenuous media personalities?

    Simple, because they are ignorant, gullible, uncritical, to trusting and have poor judgment skills.

    “Why is it that the America Public Media are populated by such ignorant, disgusting, hostile, opinionated propagandists like O’Reilly?”

    Because if you are not that way, then you get fired by your wealthy bosses who’s agenda has nothing to do with objective reporting of the news.

    So the proles are fed garbage and they have no other easy source of information, so that is what they believe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Hunsdon says:
    @D. K.
    ***

    Michael Corleone: "My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator."

    Kay Adams: "Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed."

    Michael Corleone: "Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?"

    "The Godfather" [film version (1972)]

    ***

    "American Exceptionalism" in action:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program

    ***

    To the Democratic Party's "loyal opposition," under Minority Leaders Schumer and Pelosi:

    Who murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich, last July, and what caused Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to offer such a hefty private reward for information in the (still-unsolved) murder case?

    My favorite scene from the whole movie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Corvinus
    Patrick's essay is riddled with contradictions. Not his best work.

    While I understand that it is not politically wise for Trump to open up with negotiations with Putin by outright calling him a thug and a murderer, Trump is beholden to ensure that America comes first, which requires him in some fashion to call out Putin's past that contradicts the values that Trump has sworn to uphold.

    "In Russia, there have been murders of journalists and dissidents. Yes, and President Rodrigo Duterte, our Philippine ally, has apparently condoned the deaths of thousands of drug dealers and users since last summer. The Philippine Catholic Church calls it “a reign of terror.” Should we sever our treaty ties to the Duterte regime?"

    Under the foreign affairs policy of President Carter, we are morally obligated as a country, and certainly as Christians, had due process not been strictly adhered to.

    "The problem with some of our noisier exponents of “American exceptionalism” is that they lack Reagan’s moral maturity."

    Was Reagan demonstrating his sageness when under his administration it broke several Congressional laws and broke his pledge not to engage with terrorists in the Iran-Contra Affair?

    "Did President Nixon, while negotiating his trip to Peking to end decades of hostility, speak the unvarnished truth about Mao Zedong — that he was a greater mass murderer than Stalin?"

    He didn't have to go on record, since the record spoke for itself. Do not Christians fight against evil at every turn regardless if the situation becomes "unpleasant"?

    "Mitch McConnell rushed to assure America he believes Putin is a “thug” and any suggestion of a moral equivalence between America and Russia is outrageous."

    Absolutely.

    "Yet, as we beat our chests in celebration of our own moral superiority over other nations and peoples, consider what Trump is trying to do here, and who is really behaving as a statesmen, and who is acting like an infantile and self-righteous prig."

    You of all people, Patrick, ought to know better.

    "When President Eisenhower invited Nikita Khrushchev to the United States, did Ike denounce him as the “Butcher of Budapest” for his massacre of the Hungarian patriots in 1956?"

    Again, he didn't have to, it was already known.


    And, apparently what Putin wants, he gets.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/02/05/robert-kraft-hopes-trump-can-help-retrieve-super-bowl-ring-putin-pilfered/?utm_term=.c60ad925e65b

    Trump is beholden to ensure that America comes first, which requires him in some fashion to call out Putin’s past that contradicts the values that Trump has sworn to uphold.

    Poppycock. Putting America first means, most of all, putting American interests first. Our values should be about how we run our own sovereign country, not some scheming ‘new world order’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Poppycock. Putting America first means, most of all, putting American interests first. Our values should be about how we run our own sovereign country, not some scheming ‘new world order’."

    Yes, American interests, which includes American citizens from different racial and ethnic groups. And this "new world order", now that is poppycock.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @The Scalpel
    "Why is it that the America Public Media are populated by such ignorant, disgusting, hostile, opinionated propagandists like O’Reilly?"

    Because if you are not that way, then you get fired by your wealthy bosses who's agenda has nothing to do with objective reporting of the news.

    So the proles are fed garbage and they have no other easy source of information, so that is what they believe.

    So the proles are fed garbage and they have no other easy source of information, so that is what they believe.

    Nonsense. They have the internet now. Anyone who is still ignorant in this day and age is ignorant by choice. If someone is so lazy that he chooses to get all of his ‘news’ from TV, then he deserves what he gets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    You have to get past the mindset that the MSM is telling the truth and the people on the web are the kooks. How do you know that the US was involved with training Al Qaeda in Syria? Doesn't that sound kooky?

    Look at the propagandists they listen to. Does Rush or Hannity ever give the real truth if it makes America look bad? Hannity is too stupid to know the truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. MarkinLA says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    So the proles are fed garbage and they have no other easy source of information, so that is what they believe.
     
    Nonsense. They have the internet now. Anyone who is still ignorant in this day and age is ignorant by choice. If someone is so lazy that he chooses to get all of his 'news' from TV, then he deserves what he gets.

    You have to get past the mindset that the MSM is telling the truth and the people on the web are the kooks. How do you know that the US was involved with training Al Qaeda in Syria? Doesn’t that sound kooky?

    Look at the propagandists they listen to. Does Rush or Hannity ever give the real truth if it makes America look bad? Hannity is too stupid to know the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Renoman
    You can't run any large nation without killin a lotta people, it's how the World is run and be sure that a whole lotta them need killin. Putin has made some good progress in the World, he's picked Russia out of the muck and done more to straighten out the Middle east in 6 months than America has done, well ever really. America has done little except make a giant bloody mess pretty well everywhere.

    Recall Raskolnikov’s first encounter with Porfiry, after the latter revealed to R. that his paper on the psychology of the criminal had been published (Part III, ch V):

    [MORE]

    [Porfiry:] ‘. . .an idea at the end of the article which I regret to say you merely suggested without working it out clearly. There is, if you recollect, a suggestion that there are certain persons who can — that is, not precisely are able to, but have a perfect right to commit breaches of morality and crimes, and that the law is not for them.’

    Raskolnikov smiled at the exaggerated and intentional distortion of his idea.

    ‘What? What do you mean? A right to crime? But not because of the influence of environment?’ Razumihin inquired with some alarm even.

    ‘No, not exactly because of it,’ answered Porfiry. ‘In his article all men are divided into ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary.’ Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary. That was your idea, if I am not mistaken?’

    ‘What do you mean? That can’t be right?’ Razumihin muttered in bewilderment.

    Raskolnikov smiled again. He saw the point at once, and knew where they wanted to drive him. He decided to take up the challenge.

    ‘That wasn’t quite my contention,’ he began simply and modestly. ‘Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly; perhaps, if you like, perfectly so.’ (It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.) ‘The only difference is that I don’t contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right … that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep … certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). You say that my article isn’t definite; I am ready to make it as clear as I can. Perhaps I am right in
    thinking you want me to; very well.
    I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound … to eliminate the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all … well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed—often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law—were of use to their cause. It’s remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals—more or less, of course. Otherwise it’s hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can’t submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it.

    You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before.

    As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it’s somewhat arbitrary, but I don’t insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word. There are, of course, innumerable sub- divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that’s their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood—that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that.

    It’s only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question).

    There’s no need for such anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right, they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less).
    The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist. In fact, all have equal rights with me—and vive la guerre éternelle

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Rurik says:
    @Rurik

    and any suggestion of a moral equivalence between America and Russia is outrageous.
     
    wow, I actually agree with Mitch McConnell

    Marco Rubio tweeted, “When has a Democratic political activist ever been poisoned by the GOP? Or vice versa?”
     
    there's far more reason for thinking Seth Rich was taken out by the ZUSA PTB than any evidence (none) linking Putin to Litvinenko

    as we beat our chests in celebration of our own moral superiority over other nations and peoples, consider what Trump is trying to do here, and who is really behaving as a statesmen, and who is acting like an infantile and self-righteous prig.
     
    PIG!

    say it Pat, it's liberating! War Pigs!

    murderous, treasonous, chicken-hawk liars and greedy little war pigs with their porcine faces dripping with $lop from the trough.


    John McCain calls Putin
     
    I know there's no God, because if there was a God, then John McBloodstain would have been the one left in Vietnam to the tender mercies of the Viet Cong, and not all those other men, a million times more worthy than McStain, who if anyone deserved to suffer in a cage for their rest of his vile and rotten life, it would be none other than our most loathsome citizen ever to waste air since the dawn of this nation. How can there be a God when John McCain lives and Michael Hastings is dead?

    Undeniably, we were on God’s side in World War II and the Cold War.
     
    kind of a contradiction there Pat. It was our actions during and after WWII (like Operation Keelhaul) that unleashed the Soviet Fiend on the necks of Eastern Europe for generations. We should have let the Nazis (helped them in fact!) make short work of the Soviets, and then put the Nazis in their place.

    We created the 'evil empire', by siding with Stalin and then handing over Eastern Europe to his genocidal ravages. Patton saw that, and that's why they killed him too.


    Was it not at least morally problematic what we did to Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki where hundreds of thousands of women and children were blasted and burned to death?
     
    particularly Dresden, since the war was effectively over, and the city was overflowing with civilian refugees fleeing the Red Army Rapists. What we did in Dresden, and why, is a monstrous stain upon our nation and it's murderous, demonic leadership.

    Trump is right, we have no right to preen our 'moral superiority'. Ha! Hardly. Especially today, when we're waging aggressive wars all over the planet, mass-murdering men, women and children and terrorizing entire regions with our 'terror drones', that assassinate from the sky. Trump is not only right, but O'Rielly should be punched in the face for his efrontry to all human decency and honestly. He's a rotten little liar for the neocons, as he pretends to 'look out for the folks". He's Cicero's traitor, who 'wears our face', ... yet "He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

    That's O'Rielly all right. A sinister tool of the oligarchs pretending to be 'one of the folks', as he lies us all into more wars for fun and profit. May he rot in hell.


    If Trump’s talking to Putin can help end the bloodshed in Ukraine or Syria, it would appear to be at least as ethical an act as pulpiteering about our moral superiority
     
    the irony is that it is because Putin is trying to stop the killing and mayhem that he's earning the ire of the blood-spattered Fiend. Who then in pure Orwellian fashion, call him the killer. That's like Jeffrey Dahmer accusing someone of murder for eating a hamburger.

    But by keeping the level of hypocrisy so far over the top, that the hubris is beyond the pale, it reinforces the meme that when the exceptional ZUSA murders people, they had it coming.

    greedy little war pigs with their porcine faces dripping with $lop from the trough.

    in case anyone wants a case in point..


    ‘porcine faced chicken hawks’ is not an everyday expression

    I just wanted to provide some context ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. xzandrax says:

    USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots???
    REEEEEEALY? AYFKM??? Al Qaeada wren’t patriots, nor Afghani. They were saudi-CIA terrorists. If you like them take them all. That fat idiot is the same as the libtards, stuck in the mud of the self-righteousness: no, Iraq was not a mistake, we never did ever war crimes in Vietnam, never ever anywhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    What an idiot.
    , @Andrei Martyanov

    USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots???
     
    Most American political commentators, including respected by me (albeit me being often in disagreement) Pat, somehow "forget" the fact of Afghan "patriots" (together with intelligence services of some unknown countries, wink-wink) of being directly responsible for Islamization, that is jihadization, of the Soviet Middle Asia, especially in Fergana Valley, in 1970s that it became a clear a present danger for the Soviet state. But since most of American "patriots" still live in their Manichean Cold War world and lack understanding that USSR was another iteration of Russian Empire which had exactly same issues with jihadists in the same area in 19th century as USSR had in 1970s, it is difficult for them to squeeze from themselves the admission of a historic legitimacy of USSR. This difficulty has very little to do with "Communism" (which all those American patriots fought in cahoots with Islamic terrorists) but is from completely different realm of a desperate desire for a "shining city on the hill"--a chimera which is largely responsible for a pitiful state of the United States today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @WorkingClass
    It's silly to argue against the reasoning of people demonizing Putin. They are not reasoning. They are lying.

    During the campaign Trump was clear. He would seek closer ties with Russia and cooperate with Vladimir Putin in smashing al-Qaida and ISIS terrorists in Syria, and leave Putin’s ally Bashar Assad alone.
     
    I support Trump because he is the enemy of my enemies. And specifically because he says he wants a working relationship with Russia. Trumps ignorant belligerence toward Iran however means he will not have a working relationship with Putin. Trumps only friends are AIPAC, The Military and the deplorables who elected him. He will lose the latter if he continues to demonize and threaten Iran. If Trump does not repatriate his legions and abandon his mercenaries I, for one, will turn against him.

    It’s silly to argue against the reasoning of people demonizing Putin. They are not reasoning. They are lying.

    Sweet. That is pure genius. Well put, Sir!

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. MEexpert says:
    @xzandrax
    USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots???
    REEEEEEALY? AYFKM??? Al Qaeada wren't patriots, nor Afghani. They were saudi-CIA terrorists. If you like them take them all. That fat idiot is the same as the libtards, stuck in the mud of the self-righteousness: no, Iraq was not a mistake, we never did ever war crimes in Vietnam, never ever anywhere.

    What an idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    What an idiot.
     
    Why? I think people who fought those "moral equivalents of US founding fathers", I personally know many of them, would agree with a person whom you called an idiot. In the end, none other than Commander of the 40th Army General Gromov (together with Rogozin) correctly observed that USSR was, and I quote from their NYT piece "Russian Advice On Afghanistan": "In fact, we were the first to defend Western civilization against the attacks of Muslim fanatics. No one thanked us. On the contrary, everyone was impeding our actions: The United States, NATO, Iran, Pakistan, even China. After the withdrawal of the Soviet Army, the Najibullah government that we left behind in Kabul remained in power for another three years." So, your indignation is misplaced at minimum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @xzandrax
    USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots???
    REEEEEEALY? AYFKM??? Al Qaeada wren't patriots, nor Afghani. They were saudi-CIA terrorists. If you like them take them all. That fat idiot is the same as the libtards, stuck in the mud of the self-righteousness: no, Iraq was not a mistake, we never did ever war crimes in Vietnam, never ever anywhere.

    USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots???

    Most American political commentators, including respected by me (albeit me being often in disagreement) Pat, somehow “forget” the fact of Afghan “patriots” (together with intelligence services of some unknown countries, wink-wink) of being directly responsible for Islamization, that is jihadization, of the Soviet Middle Asia, especially in Fergana Valley, in 1970s that it became a clear a present danger for the Soviet state. But since most of American “patriots” still live in their Manichean Cold War world and lack understanding that USSR was another iteration of Russian Empire which had exactly same issues with jihadists in the same area in 19th century as USSR had in 1970s, it is difficult for them to squeeze from themselves the admission of a historic legitimacy of USSR. This difficulty has very little to do with “Communism” (which all those American patriots fought in cahoots with Islamic terrorists) but is from completely different realm of a desperate desire for a “shining city on the hill”–a chimera which is largely responsible for a pitiful state of the United States today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    A lot of it is Reagan worship and an unwillingness to attach any blame to him for any reason.

    The jihadists under Reagan were "freedom fighters" even though many publicly professed a desired to establish in Afghanistan what the Ayatollah Khomeini had in Iran. I have had numerous people on web sites try and pin the Taliban on Clinton alone and deny that Reagan could ever have known that we were supporting Islamic fundamentalists. When I point to those interviews with Zbigniew Brezshinski where he admitted they knew these people were Islamic Fundamentalists and if Carter knew Reagan did as well you get a bunch of crap from them about how you were a commie or how they were in the government or military and should know more than you, blah, blah, blah.
    , @Kilo 4/11
    @SmoothieX12 #38

    More anti-American pseudo-analysis from this rusty Russian chauvinist mine layer. The hull of your barge is covered in barnacles, cracked at the welds, and leaking bilge, Ensign Smoothie.
    http://wild-about-travel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Thames-Old-Barge.jpg
    Time to tow it to the scrapper.

    Poster knows bubkes about American patriots, нічого about the sources of our patriotism, and nichts about our anti-communism. Anti-communism is the universal, reasonable, healthy and natural reaction to the most heinous ideology ever invented, as this man well knew:https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1198321/ For three armies, through three wars, and across three continents, Lauri Torni stalked the red beast. This is what animated American commie killers, too, and we were damn good at it.

    Smooth talker is also not very swift on the subject of who is responsible for “Islamization, that is jihadization” - meaning when things didn’t go quite as Uncle Joe planned, after the rise of the Soviet Union created profound changes in Central Asia generally and in the Fergana Valley specifically. Of course, if Russia had kept out of “Middle Asia” to begin with ...

    But now that he lets the cat out of the bag that indeed Russia = the SOVIET UNION = the Russian Empire - like Ukrainians, Poles, Balts, and anybody else who has had the pleasure of Russia’s close personal attention have said all along, he tries to use this continuity of evil intent and action as a legitimization! Officer, we jez be doin’ wat everybody else done … So let’s get the whole truth out: the Soviets installed a national delimitation process that grouped the peoples of Central Asia into distinct nationalities, when in previous eras identities were largely based on clan, region or religion (Islam). The ethnolinguistic labels of Uzbek, Kyrgyz or Tajik were thus not widely used until the early 20th century, and clan ties and regionalism are still a major factor today. Furthermore, borders did not exist in a modern sense, since much of the population — particularly Kazakhs, Turkmen and Kyrgyz — were nomadic, while people defined as Uzbek and Tajik were more settled. The Soviets forcibly settled the populations of Central Asia and established new borders in the region. These borders, designed by Josef Stalin primarily for administrative purposes, were also meant to prevent any future rise of a single political entity in Central Asia with the potential to challenge Moscow's power in the region. THAT is where the “issues” came from, not Afghan insurgents and their Langley mentors.

    Furthermore, the Soviet Union, being the out of wedlock child of assassination and genocide, had ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMACY. American patriots need not apologize for American assistance in focusing the rage of the oppressed on a such a target. Current attempts to revive it, at the expense of the liberty of its former vassals, are of course to be just as fiercely resisted.

    Finally, American patriots do indeed love passionately our lustrous city on its hill, as do several billion others who desperately want to be here - not in the Russkiy Mir. The “desperation” we understandably feel is not over any “chimera”, but for the blood, soil and soul of our wondrous country, which we know to be in mortal danger, perhaps an even greater danger than communism once was. This is why we took the recent great gamble on an unproven political amateur. The derisive, Clintonesque contempt of this commenter will be thrown back in his teeth as America comes back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @MEexpert
    What an idiot.

    What an idiot.

    Why? I think people who fought those “moral equivalents of US founding fathers”, I personally know many of them, would agree with a person whom you called an idiot. In the end, none other than Commander of the 40th Army General Gromov (together with Rogozin) correctly observed that USSR was, and I quote from their NYT piece “Russian Advice On Afghanistan”: “In fact, we were the first to defend Western civilization against the attacks of Muslim fanatics. No one thanked us. On the contrary, everyone was impeding our actions: The United States, NATO, Iran, Pakistan, even China. After the withdrawal of the Soviet Army, the Najibullah government that we left behind in Kabul remained in power for another three years.” So, your indignation is misplaced at minimum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You can't "defend Western civilization" in Afghanistan; if you're fighting for Western civilization there you're going on the offense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Andrei Martyanov

    What an idiot.
     
    Why? I think people who fought those "moral equivalents of US founding fathers", I personally know many of them, would agree with a person whom you called an idiot. In the end, none other than Commander of the 40th Army General Gromov (together with Rogozin) correctly observed that USSR was, and I quote from their NYT piece "Russian Advice On Afghanistan": "In fact, we were the first to defend Western civilization against the attacks of Muslim fanatics. No one thanked us. On the contrary, everyone was impeding our actions: The United States, NATO, Iran, Pakistan, even China. After the withdrawal of the Soviet Army, the Najibullah government that we left behind in Kabul remained in power for another three years." So, your indignation is misplaced at minimum.

    You can’t “defend Western civilization” in Afghanistan; if you’re fighting for Western civilization there you’re going on the offense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Decipher.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Anon
    You can't "defend Western civilization" in Afghanistan; if you're fighting for Western civilization there you're going on the offense.

    Decipher.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Corvinus says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Trump is beholden to ensure that America comes first, which requires him in some fashion to call out Putin’s past that contradicts the values that Trump has sworn to uphold.
     
    Poppycock. Putting America first means, most of all, putting American interests first. Our values should be about how we run our own sovereign country, not some scheming 'new world order'.

    “Poppycock. Putting America first means, most of all, putting American interests first. Our values should be about how we run our own sovereign country, not some scheming ‘new world order’.”

    Yes, American interests, which includes American citizens from different racial and ethnic groups. And this “new world order”, now that is poppycock.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. MEexpert says:
    @Mouth Agape

    Isn’t that what Hitler was doing when he killed Jews in Germany. He was killing them in self-defense.
     
    Huh?!

    Are you being facetious?

    Not at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Calling a leader of a powerful nation a ‘killer’ is like calling a tiger a predator.

    It comes with the job. Question is, “Is the killing vital to national interest or is it imperialist in scope?”

    The US has been in imperialist mode since the end of the Cold War.

    Putin surely has blood on his hands, but considering his need to restore order in and around Russia after the disastrous Yeltsin yrs, he couldn’t keep his hands clean.

    The GLOB should actually be relieved that someone like Putin came to power because Russia in the 90s was even more desperate than Weimar Germany. Such conditions could easily have led to rise of Russian Hitler. Thankfully, such was prevented.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Joe Levantine
    How easy it is for crooked U.S. politicians and presstitues to accuse Putin of murder without a shred of evidence.
    As for Mr. Buchanan's assertion that the U.S. was on the right side of history during WWII, I recommend that he spends some time on historic revisionism. Mike King's " The Bad War" might be a good start.

    “As for Mr. Buchanan’s assertion that the U.S. was on the right side of history during WWII…”

    Japan went totally wrong when it invaded China, and Germany lost all moral bearing when it attacked the USSR. It lost most of its moral bearing when it invaded Poland, but then, it could be argued Soviets took the other half and were just as brutal as the Nazis.

    But when Nazi Germany invaded Russia to wipe out 10s of millions and reduce the rest of the population to helot status, Nazism was a moral zero and had to be wiped off the map.

    The trickier question is, “Was the US on the right side of history in The Cold War?” The answer is tricky because it was certainly YES during the Cold War but maybe NO considering the aftereffects of the End of the Cold War(or End of History).

    During the Cold War, despite some decadence and excess, the US and EU had more sense, freedom, liberty, and dignity than drab, dreary, and repressive communist nations. So, only a moral idiot would have preferred communist totalitarianism over capitalist pluralism.

    But after the Cold War ended, the West went totally batty with neo-imperialism, globalism, homomania, Negromania, pornomania, and increasingly now, pedomania(as sex culture is peddled even to little children).
    Also, the West has become totally schizo. White people say, “We suck, we are worthless, and we have NO right to deny mass immigration into our lands because that would be ‘racist’”, but they also support a foreign policy that says, “We white nations have every right to invade, bomb, and smash other nations and to force homomania and our culture on them because WE are ‘more evolved’.”

    Imagine Bill and Bob. Bill is for freedom, and Bob is for control. There’s a cold war between Bill and Bob, and we naturally side with Bill.
    Suppose Bob finally concedes and says Bill is the winner with better idea of freedom.
    We say, “Ahhh, the end of history. Bill was the good guy and had the right idea. And Bob should now emulate Bill.”

    But as soon as Bill wins, he turns rotten, crazy, nutsoid, and loony tunes.
    As for Bob, he listened to Bill’s advice and got burned badly, and so he decided he must forge his own meaning of freedom cuz Bill’s brand of freedom has gotten so crazy after his victory.

    Likewise, the West was right in the Cold War fight but wrong in the Cold War victory.

    And given where Western Europe is going with its ‘western values’ triumphalism — allowing masses of darkies to take over Europe — , one wonders if Europe would have been better off if the Soviets took all of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
    @Anon

    Your analysis of western morality and attitudes after the Cold War is without a blemish.
    However, going back to those most immoral great World Wars, the revision of history is of paramount importance. We have been taught at school that the struggle was between dark monsters and white knights without ever giving the history student a holistic view of the origin of the conflict.
    We basically had two great colonial powers, namely Great Britain and France who had allied themselves against an ascendant Germany whose great sin was that it managed to build a competent economy that gave her an overwhelming advantage in international commerce. The German advantage came from the total subordination of German finance to the service of industry contrary to the Anglo Saxon finance model that put the whole economy at the service of financiers which is still the case in the USA today.
    This European war was destined to end with a victory of the German forces against the trilateral alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia when American isolationism suddenly turned into American imperialism at the behest of the Zionist agents in the USA who had a overwhelming control of the press and the banks with their stooge Woodrow Wilson willing to oblige.
    So it was that the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 and the First World War started in 1914, no coincidence, since wars cost money and need financing by fiat money issued by central banks. The resulting defeat of Germany, an empire that had fought 3 wars with Denmark, Austria and France to achieve Guerman unification, with the last of these wars dating to 1870, brought the Germans under the yoke of the ignoble Versailles Treaty with German land grabs by its European neighbors, the war reparations that doomed Germans to abject poverty and the war guilt clause that put the responsibility for the war on Geemans exclusively.
    As for Hitler's invasion of Poland, the decision was precipitated by a Polish leadership that stubbornly resisted any settlement of the Polish corridor under pressure not to yield by the British who were equally under pressure from FDR who was already planning American hegemony over Europe through a policy of divide and conquer.
    The issue of the invasion of the Soviet Union is not as black and white as it is portrayed in history books. War and peace are a function of the actions of your potential enemy and there is no doubt that Stalin had amassed a huge offensive capacity on the German border while he was supposedly in alliance with Hitler.
    There is little doubt that had the U.S. stayed out of European affairs during the First World War, the world would have been spared the Seconf World War as well as Adolf Hitler.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Anon
    "As for Mr. Buchanan’s assertion that the U.S. was on the right side of history during WWII..."

    Japan went totally wrong when it invaded China, and Germany lost all moral bearing when it attacked the USSR. It lost most of its moral bearing when it invaded Poland, but then, it could be argued Soviets took the other half and were just as brutal as the Nazis.

    But when Nazi Germany invaded Russia to wipe out 10s of millions and reduce the rest of the population to helot status, Nazism was a moral zero and had to be wiped off the map.

    The trickier question is, "Was the US on the right side of history in The Cold War?" The answer is tricky because it was certainly YES during the Cold War but maybe NO considering the aftereffects of the End of the Cold War(or End of History).

    During the Cold War, despite some decadence and excess, the US and EU had more sense, freedom, liberty, and dignity than drab, dreary, and repressive communist nations. So, only a moral idiot would have preferred communist totalitarianism over capitalist pluralism.

    But after the Cold War ended, the West went totally batty with neo-imperialism, globalism, homomania, Negromania, pornomania, and increasingly now, pedomania(as sex culture is peddled even to little children).
    Also, the West has become totally schizo. White people say, "We suck, we are worthless, and we have NO right to deny mass immigration into our lands because that would be 'racist'", but they also support a foreign policy that says, "We white nations have every right to invade, bomb, and smash other nations and to force homomania and our culture on them because WE are 'more evolved'."

    Imagine Bill and Bob. Bill is for freedom, and Bob is for control. There's a cold war between Bill and Bob, and we naturally side with Bill.
    Suppose Bob finally concedes and says Bill is the winner with better idea of freedom.
    We say, "Ahhh, the end of history. Bill was the good guy and had the right idea. And Bob should now emulate Bill."

    But as soon as Bill wins, he turns rotten, crazy, nutsoid, and loony tunes.
    As for Bob, he listened to Bill's advice and got burned badly, and so he decided he must forge his own meaning of freedom cuz Bill's brand of freedom has gotten so crazy after his victory.

    Likewise, the West was right in the Cold War fight but wrong in the Cold War victory.

    And given where Western Europe is going with its 'western values' triumphalism --- allowing masses of darkies to take over Europe --- , one wonders if Europe would have been better off if the Soviets took all of it.

    Your analysis of western morality and attitudes after the Cold War is without a blemish.
    However, going back to those most immoral great World Wars, the revision of history is of paramount importance. We have been taught at school that the struggle was between dark monsters and white knights without ever giving the history student a holistic view of the origin of the conflict.
    We basically had two great colonial powers, namely Great Britain and France who had allied themselves against an ascendant Germany whose great sin was that it managed to build a competent economy that gave her an overwhelming advantage in international commerce. The German advantage came from the total subordination of German finance to the service of industry contrary to the Anglo Saxon finance model that put the whole economy at the service of financiers which is still the case in the USA today.
    This European war was destined to end with a victory of the German forces against the trilateral alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia when American isolationism suddenly turned into American imperialism at the behest of the Zionist agents in the USA who had a overwhelming control of the press and the banks with their stooge Woodrow Wilson willing to oblige.
    So it was that the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 and the First World War started in 1914, no coincidence, since wars cost money and need financing by fiat money issued by central banks. The resulting defeat of Germany, an empire that had fought 3 wars with Denmark, Austria and France to achieve Guerman unification, with the last of these wars dating to 1870, brought the Germans under the yoke of the ignoble Versailles Treaty with German land grabs by its European neighbors, the war reparations that doomed Germans to abject poverty and the war guilt clause that put the responsibility for the war on Geemans exclusively.
    As for Hitler’s invasion of Poland, the decision was precipitated by a Polish leadership that stubbornly resisted any settlement of the Polish corridor under pressure not to yield by the British who were equally under pressure from FDR who was already planning American hegemony over Europe through a policy of divide and conquer.
    The issue of the invasion of the Soviet Union is not as black and white as it is portrayed in history books. War and peace are a function of the actions of your potential enemy and there is no doubt that Stalin had amassed a huge offensive capacity on the German border while he was supposedly in alliance with Hitler.
    There is little doubt that had the U.S. stayed out of European affairs during the First World War, the world would have been spared the Seconf World War as well as Adolf Hitler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    As for Hitler’s invasion of Poland, the decision was precipitated by a Polish leadership that stubbornly resisted any settlement of the Polish corridor under

    Exactly what would have pleased Hitler? What did the Czechs do to justify the German invasion?
    , @jacques sheete
    Excellent summary there!

    As for Anon's assertion...


    But when Nazi Germany invaded Russia to wipe out 10s of millions and reduce the rest of the population to helot status, Nazism was a moral zero and had to be wiped off the map.
     
    It would be interesting to hear an explanation of that given the obvious fact that Germany was threatened, on the one hand, by its jealous competitor, Britain, and on the other hand, by the psychopathic mass murderers, the Bolshies. Not one thinking person who has a clue about what was taking place all over the world as a result of the Commie International and the Brit Empire could ever hold a view such as the original assertion.

    In other words, Germany invaded the USSR as part of an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to avoid being made helots. Britain and the Bolshies were the ones hell bent on making the rest of the world helots, so the original claim is backwards.

    How long will it take before some get a clue?????

    , @Rurik

    There is little doubt that had the U.S. stayed out of European affairs during the First World War, the world would have been spared the Seconf World War as well as Adolf Hitler.
     
    zero doubt in fact

    excellent analysis sir!

    (I'm glad Jacques pointed out your spot-on summary, I had somehow passed it over)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. MarkinLA says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots???
     
    Most American political commentators, including respected by me (albeit me being often in disagreement) Pat, somehow "forget" the fact of Afghan "patriots" (together with intelligence services of some unknown countries, wink-wink) of being directly responsible for Islamization, that is jihadization, of the Soviet Middle Asia, especially in Fergana Valley, in 1970s that it became a clear a present danger for the Soviet state. But since most of American "patriots" still live in their Manichean Cold War world and lack understanding that USSR was another iteration of Russian Empire which had exactly same issues with jihadists in the same area in 19th century as USSR had in 1970s, it is difficult for them to squeeze from themselves the admission of a historic legitimacy of USSR. This difficulty has very little to do with "Communism" (which all those American patriots fought in cahoots with Islamic terrorists) but is from completely different realm of a desperate desire for a "shining city on the hill"--a chimera which is largely responsible for a pitiful state of the United States today.

    A lot of it is Reagan worship and an unwillingness to attach any blame to him for any reason.

    The jihadists under Reagan were “freedom fighters” even though many publicly professed a desired to establish in Afghanistan what the Ayatollah Khomeini had in Iran. I have had numerous people on web sites try and pin the Taliban on Clinton alone and deny that Reagan could ever have known that we were supporting Islamic fundamentalists. When I point to those interviews with Zbigniew Brezshinski where he admitted they knew these people were Islamic Fundamentalists and if Carter knew Reagan did as well you get a bunch of crap from them about how you were a commie or how they were in the government or military and should know more than you, blah, blah, blah.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The jihadists under Reagan were “freedom fighters” even though many publicly professed a desired to establish in Afghanistan what the Ayatollah Khomeini had in Iran.
     
    US has a "stellar" record of playing with jihadists. Enough to take a look at Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, not to mention a direct family connection between the Tzarnaev brothers' uncle and former CIA operative Fuller. Mind you, this is the guy, Fuller, who passes in US as a "scholar" on all things "terrorist" (and Russia) and who had no problem with his daughter being married into a lineage which produced two high profile terrorists. But, hey, Chechen "freedom fighters" were just fine as long as they were slaughtering children in Beslan or beheading people. Evidently not even atrocity of 9/11 teaches anything. There are many (faux)"scholars" and "experts" from D.C. today who are trying to do their utmost to obfuscate a direct link between US and her "allies" activities in Afghanistan in 1980s and what followed later, including 9/11 and the so called Arab Spring. Well, at least Sly Stallone got the message earlier than all this "expertdom" by changing the text of closing credits in his "Afghan" Rambo after 9/11. I always laugh at Bob Gates' claims that what happened in Afghanistan after Soviet troops left was due to US "abandoning" it, thus implying that if US didn't "abandon" it, things would be just peachy. The level of delusion is astonishing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. A much hidden historic fact with respect to the German Polish conflict in 1939, was the persecution of the Germans who became Polsih citizens after the Versailles Treaty and who suffered 47,000 casualties through massacres conducted by the communist and nationalist Poles alike with the League of Nations choosing to turn a blind eye despite many complaints by German diplomacy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. MarkinLA says:
    @Joe Levantine
    @Anon

    Your analysis of western morality and attitudes after the Cold War is without a blemish.
    However, going back to those most immoral great World Wars, the revision of history is of paramount importance. We have been taught at school that the struggle was between dark monsters and white knights without ever giving the history student a holistic view of the origin of the conflict.
    We basically had two great colonial powers, namely Great Britain and France who had allied themselves against an ascendant Germany whose great sin was that it managed to build a competent economy that gave her an overwhelming advantage in international commerce. The German advantage came from the total subordination of German finance to the service of industry contrary to the Anglo Saxon finance model that put the whole economy at the service of financiers which is still the case in the USA today.
    This European war was destined to end with a victory of the German forces against the trilateral alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia when American isolationism suddenly turned into American imperialism at the behest of the Zionist agents in the USA who had a overwhelming control of the press and the banks with their stooge Woodrow Wilson willing to oblige.
    So it was that the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 and the First World War started in 1914, no coincidence, since wars cost money and need financing by fiat money issued by central banks. The resulting defeat of Germany, an empire that had fought 3 wars with Denmark, Austria and France to achieve Guerman unification, with the last of these wars dating to 1870, brought the Germans under the yoke of the ignoble Versailles Treaty with German land grabs by its European neighbors, the war reparations that doomed Germans to abject poverty and the war guilt clause that put the responsibility for the war on Geemans exclusively.
    As for Hitler's invasion of Poland, the decision was precipitated by a Polish leadership that stubbornly resisted any settlement of the Polish corridor under pressure not to yield by the British who were equally under pressure from FDR who was already planning American hegemony over Europe through a policy of divide and conquer.
    The issue of the invasion of the Soviet Union is not as black and white as it is portrayed in history books. War and peace are a function of the actions of your potential enemy and there is no doubt that Stalin had amassed a huge offensive capacity on the German border while he was supposedly in alliance with Hitler.
    There is little doubt that had the U.S. stayed out of European affairs during the First World War, the world would have been spared the Seconf World War as well as Adolf Hitler.

    As for Hitler’s invasion of Poland, the decision was precipitated by a Polish leadership that stubbornly resisted any settlement of the Polish corridor under

    Exactly what would have pleased Hitler? What did the Czechs do to justify the German invasion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
    Czeckoslovakia was being pulled by the French to enter into an alliance that would give access to the French and British Air Forces to use the Czeck territory as a base against Germany. Had the Czech leadership cooperated with Germany about the Sudetanland problem while seeking a neutral position, the Germans would most probably have refrained from invading Czechoslovakia.
    Let us not forget that the British did invade Iceland which was a neutral country and were about to invade Norway, another neutral country to block iron ore shipments from Sweden to Germany forcing Hitler into a preemptive move towards Norway. Also Yogoslavia was on friendly terms with Germany when a British induced coup d'état brought in a hostile government to Germany and forced Hitler to invade this country to counter Churchill's soft underbelly theory of Germany. The same applied to Greece were the German invasion was followed by the immediate release of all Greek prisoners out of respect for Hellenic culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Virgile says:

    The MSM feels that they are the ones who should make the USA foreign policy, because they “know better”.
    Addressing to the press, Trump was absolutely right: Shut up!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. @MEexpert
    American Moral superiority? Let us see.

    America is quick to try leaders of other nations for crimes against humanity (or their own citizens). Mostly from the African nations. They wanted to try Saddam for war crimes. Same for Assad and people from East European countries, and the list goes on and on.
    What about United States?

    1. Should Abraham Lincoln be tried as a war criminal for thousands of civilians who were killed during the “civil” war? The US wants to do it to Assad.

    2. What about Harry Truman for dropping Atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Should he be labeled as killer and tried for crimes against humanity?

    3. Bill Clinton killed hundreds of civilians in Kosovo and Bosnia. He also killed 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions. A killing that his Secretary of State proudly pronounced as “worth it.” Aren’t they war criminals?

    4. George W. Bush killed many civilians indiscriminately in Afghanistan, in Iraq with ”shock and awe”, and in Pakistan.

    5. The Nobel Peace prize winner, Barack Obama killed thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. He killed American citizens like Anwar Al-Awlaki, his son and others without due process. Osama bin Laden was executed without due process as well. He deserved to die but if we are going to be of high moral standards and criticize Putin than we cannot kill people at our whims.

    6. What about the My Lai massacre? Wasn’t that a war crime. Only low level officers were tried. Why not the US leadership?

    7. US is also complicit in murders of Palestinians and Iranian carried out by Israel.
    So, if anybody is a “THUG,” murderer, or killer it is the US leadership.

    Israel has killed in various ways thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians in what they call “self-defense.” Isn't that what Hitler was doing when he killed Jews in Germany. He was killing them in self-defense. We tried German officers as war criminals even though they were carrying out orders.

    Bill O’Reilly and the Fox news are the biggest purveyors of “Fake news.” Bill O’Reilly can say with straight face that Saudi Arabia was not included in Trump’s list of Muslim Countries because she was fighting Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Also, the Houthis are Iran’s proxies who fired on American vessel. He, Hannity and others also spread the lie that Iran has the nuclear weapons, the US intelligence agencies’ reports notwithstanding.

    Another big lie is the $1.5 billion that Iran received as a result of the Nuclear Deal. US did not just give that money to Iran. That money belonged to Iran that the US had confiscated earlier. It was just released because of the deal. But both O’Reilly and Trump lied on the national TV that Iran got away with that money without giving anything in return.

    Are we going to just renege all the deals and agreements that Obama made? Is that going to be the norm that successive regimes will negate all the previous agreements. Will countries trust the US leadership make deal for the United States in the future, knowing full well that the new regime may discard that agreement.?

    Wow! What a list! Thank you for telling it like it is. I could add some more heinous acts to your list, like the American sponsored assassination of our allies, the Diem brothers in Viet Nam.

    Thank you for exposing American hypocrisy and hubris.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Cyrano

    He finally met Gorbachev in 1985, when the USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots.
     
    That's just beautiful. In fact why stop there, why not go all the way like Reagan did: "The mujaheedins are moral equivalents of our founding fathers". Does that mean that by extension Al-qaeda members are moral equivalents of the founding fathers?

    Anyhow, about American exceptionalism, is it just me or is there a slight contradiction when the Americans say that we are all equal and yet they are better than anyone else (exceptional). How do you reconcile those diametrically opposite statements. My interpretation is like this: We (The Americans) are so better than anyone else that we can afford the generosity of calling the rest of the world equal, although we don't really mean it, but we still deserve and expect gratitude for such generosity. I call that the mother of all hypocrisy.

    American Exceptionalism is really national narcissism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @MarkinLA
    A lot of it is Reagan worship and an unwillingness to attach any blame to him for any reason.

    The jihadists under Reagan were "freedom fighters" even though many publicly professed a desired to establish in Afghanistan what the Ayatollah Khomeini had in Iran. I have had numerous people on web sites try and pin the Taliban on Clinton alone and deny that Reagan could ever have known that we were supporting Islamic fundamentalists. When I point to those interviews with Zbigniew Brezshinski where he admitted they knew these people were Islamic Fundamentalists and if Carter knew Reagan did as well you get a bunch of crap from them about how you were a commie or how they were in the government or military and should know more than you, blah, blah, blah.

    The jihadists under Reagan were “freedom fighters” even though many publicly professed a desired to establish in Afghanistan what the Ayatollah Khomeini had in Iran.

    US has a “stellar” record of playing with jihadists. Enough to take a look at Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, not to mention a direct family connection between the Tzarnaev brothers’ uncle and former CIA operative Fuller. Mind you, this is the guy, Fuller, who passes in US as a “scholar” on all things “terrorist” (and Russia) and who had no problem with his daughter being married into a lineage which produced two high profile terrorists. But, hey, Chechen “freedom fighters” were just fine as long as they were slaughtering children in Beslan or beheading people. Evidently not even atrocity of 9/11 teaches anything. There are many (faux)”scholars” and “experts” from D.C. today who are trying to do their utmost to obfuscate a direct link between US and her “allies” activities in Afghanistan in 1980s and what followed later, including 9/11 and the so called Arab Spring. Well, at least Sly Stallone got the message earlier than all this “expertdom” by changing the text of closing credits in his “Afghan” Rambo after 9/11. I always laugh at Bob Gates’ claims that what happened in Afghanistan after Soviet troops left was due to US “abandoning” it, thus implying that if US didn’t “abandon” it, things would be just peachy. The level of delusion is astonishing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. “Undeniably, we were on God’s side in World War II and the Cold War.”

    Mr Buchanan wrote a pretty good book, “Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War” and I’m wondering how anyone could say that anyone was on God’s side in an unnecessary war.

    Perhaps he meant that the US wasn’t bombed physically, but even so, it became more of a centralized, bureaucratic, indebted, enslaved, militarized, hyper-aggressive, meddlesome, utterly immoral police state as a result of both WW1 and WW2, so how can he make the claim with a straight face?

    Mr. Buchanan, judging by your last several articles, I think it’s time to consider taking the time to think before you write, and think really hard before you publish. It may even be time to put the pen down…slowly…and back away from your desk quietly. Leave the room, lock the door, and go play with your grandkids before you make a really sad public spectacle of yourself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
    Correct observation. While I hold Mr. Buchanan in great esteem for his courageous articles and books that he wrote during the 1990's and a good deal of the new millennium, it sadly seems as of late that he has been cowed by the powers that be into a compromising stand against the very principles he defended during his rebel years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Joe Levantine
    @Anon

    Your analysis of western morality and attitudes after the Cold War is without a blemish.
    However, going back to those most immoral great World Wars, the revision of history is of paramount importance. We have been taught at school that the struggle was between dark monsters and white knights without ever giving the history student a holistic view of the origin of the conflict.
    We basically had two great colonial powers, namely Great Britain and France who had allied themselves against an ascendant Germany whose great sin was that it managed to build a competent economy that gave her an overwhelming advantage in international commerce. The German advantage came from the total subordination of German finance to the service of industry contrary to the Anglo Saxon finance model that put the whole economy at the service of financiers which is still the case in the USA today.
    This European war was destined to end with a victory of the German forces against the trilateral alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia when American isolationism suddenly turned into American imperialism at the behest of the Zionist agents in the USA who had a overwhelming control of the press and the banks with their stooge Woodrow Wilson willing to oblige.
    So it was that the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 and the First World War started in 1914, no coincidence, since wars cost money and need financing by fiat money issued by central banks. The resulting defeat of Germany, an empire that had fought 3 wars with Denmark, Austria and France to achieve Guerman unification, with the last of these wars dating to 1870, brought the Germans under the yoke of the ignoble Versailles Treaty with German land grabs by its European neighbors, the war reparations that doomed Germans to abject poverty and the war guilt clause that put the responsibility for the war on Geemans exclusively.
    As for Hitler's invasion of Poland, the decision was precipitated by a Polish leadership that stubbornly resisted any settlement of the Polish corridor under pressure not to yield by the British who were equally under pressure from FDR who was already planning American hegemony over Europe through a policy of divide and conquer.
    The issue of the invasion of the Soviet Union is not as black and white as it is portrayed in history books. War and peace are a function of the actions of your potential enemy and there is no doubt that Stalin had amassed a huge offensive capacity on the German border while he was supposedly in alliance with Hitler.
    There is little doubt that had the U.S. stayed out of European affairs during the First World War, the world would have been spared the Seconf World War as well as Adolf Hitler.

    Excellent summary there!

    As for Anon’s assertion…

    But when Nazi Germany invaded Russia to wipe out 10s of millions and reduce the rest of the population to helot status, Nazism was a moral zero and had to be wiped off the map.

    It would be interesting to hear an explanation of that given the obvious fact that Germany was threatened, on the one hand, by its jealous competitor, Britain, and on the other hand, by the psychopathic mass murderers, the Bolshies. Not one thinking person who has a clue about what was taking place all over the world as a result of the Commie International and the Brit Empire could ever hold a view such as the original assertion.

    In other words, Germany invaded the USSR as part of an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to avoid being made helots. Britain and the Bolshies were the ones hell bent on making the rest of the world helots, so the original claim is backwards.

    How long will it take before some get a clue?????

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Helluva logic, Germany invades all of Europe to prevent being invaded themselves. Same with US it creates mayhem around the world in order to prevent the world from bringing mayhem to US – for this they don’t need anybody’s help, they seem to be doing pretty good job themselves.

    According to the neocons theory it’s better to fight them (mythic terrorists) “over there” than in the US. Trump is attempting to fight them on home soil – that doesn’t sit well with the brainwashed Americans. Well, at least the cases of Iraq and Libya are clearer – they were invaded (attacked) because they were planning an invasion on the US dollar.
    , @Rurik

    Britain and the Bolshies were the ones hell bent on making the rest of the world helots, so the original claim is backwards.
     
    you have a point Jacques, but the problem with the Nazis was their meteoric rise under Hitler, who when he freed the German people from the shackles and usury-chains of the international banksters, and roused the collective German spirit with pride- having languished for so long under the scourge and malice of an envious world, the explosive successes they created (like a beach-ball being held under the water, and when the banker's vampire fangs were pulled out, the beach-ball bursts out of the water with great energy, finally liberated) bolstered the idea that they were special, and that God really had ordained them as the master race. Vanity iow.

    And it was that vanity, or hubris that was their undoing.

    Had they waited until Poland granted them the corridor, and patiently suffered all those humiliations, rather than carving Poland up in cahoots with the devil, things might have turned out very differently.

    But hindsight of course it 20/20
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Cyrano says:
    @jacques sheete
    Excellent summary there!

    As for Anon's assertion...


    But when Nazi Germany invaded Russia to wipe out 10s of millions and reduce the rest of the population to helot status, Nazism was a moral zero and had to be wiped off the map.
     
    It would be interesting to hear an explanation of that given the obvious fact that Germany was threatened, on the one hand, by its jealous competitor, Britain, and on the other hand, by the psychopathic mass murderers, the Bolshies. Not one thinking person who has a clue about what was taking place all over the world as a result of the Commie International and the Brit Empire could ever hold a view such as the original assertion.

    In other words, Germany invaded the USSR as part of an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to avoid being made helots. Britain and the Bolshies were the ones hell bent on making the rest of the world helots, so the original claim is backwards.

    How long will it take before some get a clue?????

    Helluva logic, Germany invades all of Europe to prevent being invaded themselves. Same with US it creates mayhem around the world in order to prevent the world from bringing mayhem to US – for this they don’t need anybody’s help, they seem to be doing pretty good job themselves.

    According to the neocons theory it’s better to fight them (mythic terrorists) “over there” than in the US. Trump is attempting to fight them on home soil – that doesn’t sit well with the brainwashed Americans. Well, at least the cases of Iraq and Libya are clearer – they were invaded (attacked) because they were planning an invasion on the US dollar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Boris N says:

    Actually it is terrible. Because the author tries to say that the only reason to treat Russia fairly and have any reasonable communication is the fear of the bomb, and there’s nothing else where Russian and the USA may have common interests. Whatever sins the Soviets did, one thing they did right building the nuclear bomb. Otherwise it is hard and painfully to imagine what might have happened with Russia. For the USA Russia is always filth worth only for subjugation and destruction. Americans do not understand anything but power. God save the bomb!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Boris N says:

    And speaking about “patriots” the author forgot to mention other patriots which were massacred and slaughtered by various American leaders: German patriots, Italian patriots, Japanese patriots, Korean patriots, Vietnamese patriots, Panama patriots, Serbian patriots, Afghani patriots, Iraqi patriots, Libyan patriots, Syrian patriots… did I miss somebody? There have been too many patriots slaughtered to ever speak with or even shaking hands with any American leader – one’s hands might get dirty with blood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Reagan believed the truly moral thing he could do was negotiate to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

    Wasn’t G H W Bush the ‘Dick Cheney’ who pulled Reagan’s strings and scripted his ‘great communicator’ speeches?
    Wasn’t Hinkley a friend of the Bush (crime) family?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @MarkinLA
    As for Hitler’s invasion of Poland, the decision was precipitated by a Polish leadership that stubbornly resisted any settlement of the Polish corridor under

    Exactly what would have pleased Hitler? What did the Czechs do to justify the German invasion?

    Czeckoslovakia was being pulled by the French to enter into an alliance that would give access to the French and British Air Forces to use the Czeck territory as a base against Germany. Had the Czech leadership cooperated with Germany about the Sudetanland problem while seeking a neutral position, the Germans would most probably have refrained from invading Czechoslovakia.
    Let us not forget that the British did invade Iceland which was a neutral country and were about to invade Norway, another neutral country to block iron ore shipments from Sweden to Germany forcing Hitler into a preemptive move towards Norway. Also Yogoslavia was on friendly terms with Germany when a British induced coup d’état brought in a hostile government to Germany and forced Hitler to invade this country to counter Churchill’s soft underbelly theory of Germany. The same applied to Greece were the German invasion was followed by the immediate release of all Greek prisoners out of respect for Hellenic culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Serbia (Yugoslavia) is a long time ally of Russia. Somehow I don't see the Serbs as allies of Germany.
    , @MarkinLA
    Had the Czech leadership cooperated with Germany about the Sudetanland problem while seeking a neutral position, the Germans would most probably have refrained from invading Czechoslovakia.

    Lot of ifs there that don't make sense. There is no way for the Brits or the French to make any significant presence in Czechoslovakia such that Germany couldn't wait for the Czechs to show their hand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @jacques sheete

    “Undeniably, we were on God’s side in World War II and the Cold War.”
     
    Mr Buchanan wrote a pretty good book, "Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War" and I'm wondering how anyone could say that anyone was on God's side in an unnecessary war.

    Perhaps he meant that the US wasn't bombed physically, but even so, it became more of a centralized, bureaucratic, indebted, enslaved, militarized, hyper-aggressive, meddlesome, utterly immoral police state as a result of both WW1 and WW2, so how can he make the claim with a straight face?

    Mr. Buchanan, judging by your last several articles, I think it's time to consider taking the time to think before you write, and think really hard before you publish. It may even be time to put the pen down...slowly...and back away from your desk quietly. Leave the room, lock the door, and go play with your grandkids before you make a really sad public spectacle of yourself.

    Correct observation. While I hold Mr. Buchanan in great esteem for his courageous articles and books that he wrote during the 1990′s and a good deal of the new millennium, it sadly seems as of late that he has been cowed by the powers that be into a compromising stand against the very principles he defended during his rebel years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Rurik says:
    @jacques sheete
    Excellent summary there!

    As for Anon's assertion...


    But when Nazi Germany invaded Russia to wipe out 10s of millions and reduce the rest of the population to helot status, Nazism was a moral zero and had to be wiped off the map.
     
    It would be interesting to hear an explanation of that given the obvious fact that Germany was threatened, on the one hand, by its jealous competitor, Britain, and on the other hand, by the psychopathic mass murderers, the Bolshies. Not one thinking person who has a clue about what was taking place all over the world as a result of the Commie International and the Brit Empire could ever hold a view such as the original assertion.

    In other words, Germany invaded the USSR as part of an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to avoid being made helots. Britain and the Bolshies were the ones hell bent on making the rest of the world helots, so the original claim is backwards.

    How long will it take before some get a clue?????

    Britain and the Bolshies were the ones hell bent on making the rest of the world helots, so the original claim is backwards.

    you have a point Jacques, but the problem with the Nazis was their meteoric rise under Hitler, who when he freed the German people from the shackles and usury-chains of the international banksters, and roused the collective German spirit with pride- having languished for so long under the scourge and malice of an envious world, the explosive successes they created (like a beach-ball being held under the water, and when the banker’s vampire fangs were pulled out, the beach-ball bursts out of the water with great energy, finally liberated) bolstered the idea that they were special, and that God really had ordained them as the master race. Vanity iow.

    And it was that vanity, or hubris that was their undoing.

    Had they waited until Poland granted them the corridor, and patiently suffered all those humiliations, rather than carving Poland up in cahoots with the devil, things might have turned out very differently.

    But hindsight of course it 20/20

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Had they waited until Poland granted them the corridor, and patiently suffered all those humiliations, rather than carving Poland up in cahoots with the devil, things might have turned out very differently.
     
    Maj Gen Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof provides evidence that the Germans waited as long as they could, plus a little bit more --

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

    Documents from the British side strongly suggest that only more intransigence could have been expected from the Poles.

    Further, ethnic Germans were being abused and killed in newly-Polish territory.

    imo Buchanan's argument is stronger than yours: If the British and French (and FDR & zionists) had behaved honestly, "things might have turned out very differently."

    That things turned out as they did broadly suggests that things turned out exactly as FDR, British & zionists desired.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Rurik says:
    @Joe Levantine
    @Anon

    Your analysis of western morality and attitudes after the Cold War is without a blemish.
    However, going back to those most immoral great World Wars, the revision of history is of paramount importance. We have been taught at school that the struggle was between dark monsters and white knights without ever giving the history student a holistic view of the origin of the conflict.
    We basically had two great colonial powers, namely Great Britain and France who had allied themselves against an ascendant Germany whose great sin was that it managed to build a competent economy that gave her an overwhelming advantage in international commerce. The German advantage came from the total subordination of German finance to the service of industry contrary to the Anglo Saxon finance model that put the whole economy at the service of financiers which is still the case in the USA today.
    This European war was destined to end with a victory of the German forces against the trilateral alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia when American isolationism suddenly turned into American imperialism at the behest of the Zionist agents in the USA who had a overwhelming control of the press and the banks with their stooge Woodrow Wilson willing to oblige.
    So it was that the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 and the First World War started in 1914, no coincidence, since wars cost money and need financing by fiat money issued by central banks. The resulting defeat of Germany, an empire that had fought 3 wars with Denmark, Austria and France to achieve Guerman unification, with the last of these wars dating to 1870, brought the Germans under the yoke of the ignoble Versailles Treaty with German land grabs by its European neighbors, the war reparations that doomed Germans to abject poverty and the war guilt clause that put the responsibility for the war on Geemans exclusively.
    As for Hitler's invasion of Poland, the decision was precipitated by a Polish leadership that stubbornly resisted any settlement of the Polish corridor under pressure not to yield by the British who were equally under pressure from FDR who was already planning American hegemony over Europe through a policy of divide and conquer.
    The issue of the invasion of the Soviet Union is not as black and white as it is portrayed in history books. War and peace are a function of the actions of your potential enemy and there is no doubt that Stalin had amassed a huge offensive capacity on the German border while he was supposedly in alliance with Hitler.
    There is little doubt that had the U.S. stayed out of European affairs during the First World War, the world would have been spared the Seconf World War as well as Adolf Hitler.

    There is little doubt that had the U.S. stayed out of European affairs during the First World War, the world would have been spared the Seconf World War as well as Adolf Hitler.

    zero doubt in fact

    excellent analysis sir!

    (I’m glad Jacques pointed out your spot-on summary, I had somehow passed it over)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. MarkinLA says:
    @Joe Levantine
    Czeckoslovakia was being pulled by the French to enter into an alliance that would give access to the French and British Air Forces to use the Czeck territory as a base against Germany. Had the Czech leadership cooperated with Germany about the Sudetanland problem while seeking a neutral position, the Germans would most probably have refrained from invading Czechoslovakia.
    Let us not forget that the British did invade Iceland which was a neutral country and were about to invade Norway, another neutral country to block iron ore shipments from Sweden to Germany forcing Hitler into a preemptive move towards Norway. Also Yogoslavia was on friendly terms with Germany when a British induced coup d'état brought in a hostile government to Germany and forced Hitler to invade this country to counter Churchill's soft underbelly theory of Germany. The same applied to Greece were the German invasion was followed by the immediate release of all Greek prisoners out of respect for Hellenic culture.

    Serbia (Yugoslavia) is a long time ally of Russia. Somehow I don’t see the Serbs as allies of Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It wasn't a question of alliance, it was a question of not getting run over. Plus the Serbs wouldn't have seen Russia as an ally, it being Bolshevist and all that.

    (edit: Plus Russia wasn't even fighting Germany yet, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was still in effect)

    Here's a bare-bones account: http://www.royalfamily.org/dynasty/hrh-prince-paul-of-yugoslavia-regent/

    and an account more sympathetic to Prince Paul: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-betrayal-of-yugoslavia.html .

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. MarkinLA says:
    @Joe Levantine
    Czeckoslovakia was being pulled by the French to enter into an alliance that would give access to the French and British Air Forces to use the Czeck territory as a base against Germany. Had the Czech leadership cooperated with Germany about the Sudetanland problem while seeking a neutral position, the Germans would most probably have refrained from invading Czechoslovakia.
    Let us not forget that the British did invade Iceland which was a neutral country and were about to invade Norway, another neutral country to block iron ore shipments from Sweden to Germany forcing Hitler into a preemptive move towards Norway. Also Yogoslavia was on friendly terms with Germany when a British induced coup d'état brought in a hostile government to Germany and forced Hitler to invade this country to counter Churchill's soft underbelly theory of Germany. The same applied to Greece were the German invasion was followed by the immediate release of all Greek prisoners out of respect for Hellenic culture.

    Had the Czech leadership cooperated with Germany about the Sudetanland problem while seeking a neutral position, the Germans would most probably have refrained from invading Czechoslovakia.

    Lot of ifs there that don’t make sense. There is no way for the Brits or the French to make any significant presence in Czechoslovakia such that Germany couldn’t wait for the Czechs to show their hand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MarkinLA
    Serbia (Yugoslavia) is a long time ally of Russia. Somehow I don't see the Serbs as allies of Germany.

    It wasn’t a question of alliance, it was a question of not getting run over. Plus the Serbs wouldn’t have seen Russia as an ally, it being Bolshevist and all that.

    (edit: Plus Russia wasn’t even fighting Germany yet, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was still in effect)

    Here’s a bare-bones account: http://www.royalfamily.org/dynasty/hrh-prince-paul-of-yugoslavia-regent/

    and an account more sympathetic to Prince Paul: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-betrayal-of-yugoslavia.html .

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Thanks - good to know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Rurik

    Britain and the Bolshies were the ones hell bent on making the rest of the world helots, so the original claim is backwards.
     
    you have a point Jacques, but the problem with the Nazis was their meteoric rise under Hitler, who when he freed the German people from the shackles and usury-chains of the international banksters, and roused the collective German spirit with pride- having languished for so long under the scourge and malice of an envious world, the explosive successes they created (like a beach-ball being held under the water, and when the banker's vampire fangs were pulled out, the beach-ball bursts out of the water with great energy, finally liberated) bolstered the idea that they were special, and that God really had ordained them as the master race. Vanity iow.

    And it was that vanity, or hubris that was their undoing.

    Had they waited until Poland granted them the corridor, and patiently suffered all those humiliations, rather than carving Poland up in cahoots with the devil, things might have turned out very differently.

    But hindsight of course it 20/20

    Had they waited until Poland granted them the corridor, and patiently suffered all those humiliations, rather than carving Poland up in cahoots with the devil, things might have turned out very differently.

    Maj Gen Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof provides evidence that the Germans waited as long as they could, plus a little bit more –

    Documents from the British side strongly suggest that only more intransigence could have been expected from the Poles.

    Further, ethnic Germans were being abused and killed in newly-Polish territory.

    imo Buchanan’s argument is stronger than yours: If the British and French (and FDR & zionists) had behaved honestly, “things might have turned out very differently.”

    That things turned out as they did broadly suggests that things turned out exactly as FDR, British & zionists desired.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    things turned out exactly as FDR, British & zionists desired.
     
    that's my point

    Germany was in a death-dance with the Fiend itself

    Hitler of all people must have known of their infinite treachery, and demonic, murderous, perfidious hate

    with so much at stake, perhaps he had no choice, and I concede that there is that possibility. As you recall, I was the one pointing out that there were accounts of German boys being castrated by the Poles, no doubt as a provocation. As I said, Germany was facing the Beast. Just as we all are today. Especially Putin.

    but yet, perhaps.. there is hope?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/08/rand_paul_president_trump_giving_new_life_to_audit_the_fed_demand.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. MarkinLA says:
    @Anon
    It wasn't a question of alliance, it was a question of not getting run over. Plus the Serbs wouldn't have seen Russia as an ally, it being Bolshevist and all that.

    (edit: Plus Russia wasn't even fighting Germany yet, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was still in effect)

    Here's a bare-bones account: http://www.royalfamily.org/dynasty/hrh-prince-paul-of-yugoslavia-regent/

    and an account more sympathetic to Prince Paul: http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-betrayal-of-yugoslavia.html .

    Thanks – good to know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Had they waited until Poland granted them the corridor, and patiently suffered all those humiliations, rather than carving Poland up in cahoots with the devil, things might have turned out very differently.
     
    Maj Gen Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof provides evidence that the Germans waited as long as they could, plus a little bit more --

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

    Documents from the British side strongly suggest that only more intransigence could have been expected from the Poles.

    Further, ethnic Germans were being abused and killed in newly-Polish territory.

    imo Buchanan's argument is stronger than yours: If the British and French (and FDR & zionists) had behaved honestly, "things might have turned out very differently."

    That things turned out as they did broadly suggests that things turned out exactly as FDR, British & zionists desired.

    things turned out exactly as FDR, British & zionists desired.

    that’s my point

    Germany was in a death-dance with the Fiend itself

    Hitler of all people must have known of their infinite treachery, and demonic, murderous, perfidious hate

    with so much at stake, perhaps he had no choice, and I concede that there is that possibility. As you recall, I was the one pointing out that there were accounts of German boys being castrated by the Poles, no doubt as a provocation. As I said, Germany was facing the Beast. Just as we all are today. Especially Putin.

    but yet, perhaps.. there is hope?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/08/rand_paul_president_trump_giving_new_life_to_audit_the_fed_demand.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Levantine
    Great lucid thinking. When will the Western perspective of history catch up with that of leading thinkers like you?
    , @SolontoCroesus

    perhaps he had no choice, and I concede that there is that possibility.
     
    We differ only in the extent to which we are willing to "rehabilitate Hitler" and Germany: I think it is essential to tell, as fully as possible, the other side of the story, without all the contingencies and conditions -- "perhaps . . . that possibility . . ." maybe kinda sorta.

    The Fiend attaches no conditions whatsoever to either its behavior -- it was innocent and virtuous in every way -- or to that of the adversary -- it was evil beyond any other situation in all of history, a judgment that was handed down even before it had committed a single 'evil' act!

    Rebalancing the scales of justice is a tricky business: it's probably not a good idea to overweight the pro-German scales in a way that exceeds the extent to which the pro-Fiend balance has been overweighted; rather, it's more advisable to gradually but sternly and unequivocally -- not "perhaps and possibly"-- remove from the Fiend's balance pan each and every gram of false evidence and judgment.

    In the signs of hope department --

    Iran had been an ally of Germany before and during the era of the world wars, and although neutral, Iran was occupied (and abused) by Allied forces. The point is that Iranians saw and experienced both sides of the situation and could penetrate the propaganda/psychological warfare.

    Furthermore, as the one state that had afforded security and prosperity to Jews for millennia, and where more Jews lived than any other state in the region, Iran could observe and comprehend the activities of zionists as they were taking place -- activities that we are just beginning to learn about. Iran may therefore have insight into the corners that the Fiend pushed Germany -- and Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria -- and thereby be better equipped to have the "patience" to wait out the (remarkably repetitive) playbook of the Fiend.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Rurik

    things turned out exactly as FDR, British & zionists desired.
     
    that's my point

    Germany was in a death-dance with the Fiend itself

    Hitler of all people must have known of their infinite treachery, and demonic, murderous, perfidious hate

    with so much at stake, perhaps he had no choice, and I concede that there is that possibility. As you recall, I was the one pointing out that there were accounts of German boys being castrated by the Poles, no doubt as a provocation. As I said, Germany was facing the Beast. Just as we all are today. Especially Putin.

    but yet, perhaps.. there is hope?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/08/rand_paul_president_trump_giving_new_life_to_audit_the_fed_demand.html

    Great lucid thinking. When will the Western perspective of history catch up with that of leading thinkers like you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Rurik

    things turned out exactly as FDR, British & zionists desired.
     
    that's my point

    Germany was in a death-dance with the Fiend itself

    Hitler of all people must have known of their infinite treachery, and demonic, murderous, perfidious hate

    with so much at stake, perhaps he had no choice, and I concede that there is that possibility. As you recall, I was the one pointing out that there were accounts of German boys being castrated by the Poles, no doubt as a provocation. As I said, Germany was facing the Beast. Just as we all are today. Especially Putin.

    but yet, perhaps.. there is hope?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/08/rand_paul_president_trump_giving_new_life_to_audit_the_fed_demand.html

    perhaps he had no choice, and I concede that there is that possibility.

    We differ only in the extent to which we are willing to “rehabilitate Hitler” and Germany: I think it is essential to tell, as fully as possible, the other side of the story, without all the contingencies and conditions — “perhaps . . . that possibility . . .” maybe kinda sorta.

    The Fiend attaches no conditions whatsoever to either its behavior — it was innocent and virtuous in every way — or to that of the adversary — it was evil beyond any other situation in all of history, a judgment that was handed down even before it had committed a single ‘evil’ act!

    Rebalancing the scales of justice is a tricky business: it’s probably not a good idea to overweight the pro-German scales in a way that exceeds the extent to which the pro-Fiend balance has been overweighted; rather, it’s more advisable to gradually but sternly and unequivocally – not “perhaps and possibly”– remove from the Fiend’s balance pan each and every gram of false evidence and judgment.

    In the signs of hope department –

    Iran had been an ally of Germany before and during the era of the world wars, and although neutral, Iran was occupied (and abused) by Allied forces. The point is that Iranians saw and experienced both sides of the situation and could penetrate the propaganda/psychological warfare.

    Furthermore, as the one state that had afforded security and prosperity to Jews for millennia, and where more Jews lived than any other state in the region, Iran could observe and comprehend the activities of zionists as they were taking place — activities that we are just beginning to learn about. Iran may therefore have insight into the corners that the Fiend pushed Germany — and Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria — and thereby be better equipped to have the “patience” to wait out the (remarkably repetitive) playbook of the Fiend.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Kilo 4/11 says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    USSR was occupying Afghanistan and slaughtering Afghan patriots???
     
    Most American political commentators, including respected by me (albeit me being often in disagreement) Pat, somehow "forget" the fact of Afghan "patriots" (together with intelligence services of some unknown countries, wink-wink) of being directly responsible for Islamization, that is jihadization, of the Soviet Middle Asia, especially in Fergana Valley, in 1970s that it became a clear a present danger for the Soviet state. But since most of American "patriots" still live in their Manichean Cold War world and lack understanding that USSR was another iteration of Russian Empire which had exactly same issues with jihadists in the same area in 19th century as USSR had in 1970s, it is difficult for them to squeeze from themselves the admission of a historic legitimacy of USSR. This difficulty has very little to do with "Communism" (which all those American patriots fought in cahoots with Islamic terrorists) but is from completely different realm of a desperate desire for a "shining city on the hill"--a chimera which is largely responsible for a pitiful state of the United States today.

    @SmoothieX12 #38

    More anti-American pseudo-analysis from this rusty Russian chauvinist mine layer. The hull of your barge is covered in barnacles, cracked at the welds, and leaking bilge, Ensign Smoothie.

    Time to tow it to the scrapper.

    Poster knows bubkes about American patriots, нічого about the sources of our patriotism, and nichts about our anti-communism. Anti-communism is the universal, reasonable, healthy and natural reaction to the most heinous ideology ever invented, as this man well knew:https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1198321/ For three armies, through three wars, and across three continents, Lauri Torni stalked the red beast. This is what animated American commie killers, too, and we were damn good at it.

    Smooth talker is also not very swift on the subject of who is responsible for “Islamization, that is jihadization” – meaning when things didn’t go quite as Uncle Joe planned, after the rise of the Soviet Union created profound changes in Central Asia generally and in the Fergana Valley specifically. Of course, if Russia had kept out of “Middle Asia” to begin with …

    But now that he lets the cat out of the bag that indeed Russia = the SOVIET UNION = the Russian Empire – like Ukrainians, Poles, Balts, and anybody else who has had the pleasure of Russia’s close personal attention have said all along, he tries to use this continuity of evil intent and action as a legitimization! Officer, we jez be doin’ wat everybody else done … So let’s get the whole truth out: the Soviets installed a national delimitation process that grouped the peoples of Central Asia into distinct nationalities, when in previous eras identities were largely based on clan, region or religion (Islam). The ethnolinguistic labels of Uzbek, Kyrgyz or Tajik were thus not widely used until the early 20th century, and clan ties and regionalism are still a major factor today. Furthermore, borders did not exist in a modern sense, since much of the population — particularly Kazakhs, Turkmen and Kyrgyz — were nomadic, while people defined as Uzbek and Tajik were more settled. The Soviets forcibly settled the populations of Central Asia and established new borders in the region. These borders, designed by Josef Stalin primarily for administrative purposes, were also meant to prevent any future rise of a single political entity in Central Asia with the potential to challenge Moscow’s power in the region. THAT is where the “issues” came from, not Afghan insurgents and their Langley mentors.

    Furthermore, the Soviet Union, being the out of wedlock child of assassination and genocide, had ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMACY. American patriots need not apologize for American assistance in focusing the rage of the oppressed on a such a target. Current attempts to revive it, at the expense of the liberty of its former vassals, are of course to be just as fiercely resisted.

    Finally, American patriots do indeed love passionately our lustrous city on its hill, as do several billion others who desperately want to be here – not in the Russkiy Mir. The “desperation” we understandably feel is not over any “chimera”, but for the blood, soil and soul of our wondrous country, which we know to be in mortal danger, perhaps an even greater danger than communism once was. This is why we took the recent great gamble on an unproven political amateur. The derisive, Clintonesque contempt of this commenter will be thrown back in his teeth as America comes back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?