The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Why Do "Progressives" Like War?
Fleeing to Canada is no longer an option
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Liberals are supposed to be antiwar, right? I went to college in the 1960s, when students nationwide were rising up in opposition to the Vietnam War. I was a Young Republican back then and supported the war through sheer ignorance and dislike of the sanctimoniousness of the protesters, some of whom were surely making their way to Canada to live in exile on daddy’s money while I was on a bus going to Fort Leonard Wood for basic combat training. I can’t even claim that I had some grudging respect for the antiwar crowd because I didn’t, but I did believe that at least some of them who were not being motivated by being personally afraid of getting hurt were actually sincere in their opposition to the awful things that were happening in Southeast Asia.

As I look around now, however, I see something quite different. The lefties I knew in college are now part of the Establishment and generally speaking are retired limousine liberals. And they now call themselves progressives, of course, because it sounds more educated and sends a better message, implying as it does that troglodytic conservatives are anti-progress. But they also have done a flip on the issue of war and peace. In its most recent incarnation some of this might be attributed to a desperate desire to relate to the Hillary Clinton campaign with its bellicosity towards Russia, Syria and Iran, but I suspect that the inclination to identify enemies goes much deeper than that, back as far as the Bill Clinton Administration with its sanctions on Iraq and the Balkan adventure, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the creation of a terror-narco state in the heart of Europe. And more recently we have seen the Obama meddling in Libya, Yemen and Syria in so called humanitarian interventions which have turned out to be largely fraudulent. Yes, under the Obama Dems it was “responsibility to protect time” (r2p) and all the world trembled as the drones were let loose.

Last Friday I started to read an op-ed in The Washington Post by David Ignatius that blew me away. It began “President Trump confronts complicated problems as the investigation widens into Russia’s attack on our political system.” It then proceeded to lay out the case for an “aggressive Russia” in the terms that have been repeated ad nauseam in the mainstream media. And it was, of course, lacking in any evidence, as if the opinions of coopted journalists and the highly politicized senior officials in the intelligence community should be regarded as sacrosanct. These are, not coincidentally, the same people who have reportedly recently been working together to undercut the White House by leaking and then reporting highly sensitive transcripts of phone calls with Russian officials.

Ignatius is well plugged into the national security community and inclined to be hawkish but he is also a typical Post politically correct progressive on most issues. So here was your typical liberal asserting something in a dangerous fashion that has not been demonstrated and might be completely untrue. Russia is attacking “our political system!” And The Post is not alone in accepting that Russia is trying to subvert and ultimately overthrow our republic. Reporting from The New York Times and on television news makes the same assumption whenever they discuss Russia, leading to what some critics have described as mounting American ‘hysteria’ relating to anything coming out of Moscow.

Rachel Maddow is another favorite of mine when it comes to talking real humanitarian feel good stuff out one side of her mouth while beating the drum for war from the other side. In a bravura performance on January 26th she roundly chastised Russia and its president Vladimir Putin. Rachel, who freaked out completely when Donald Trump was elected, is now keen to demonstrate that Trump has been corrupted by Russia and is now controlled out of the Kremlin. She described Trump’s lord and master Putin as an “intense little man” who murders his opponents before going into the whole “Trump stole the election with the aid of Moscow” saga, supporting sanctions on Russia and multiple investigations to get to the bottom of “Putin’s attacks on our democracy.” Per Maddow, Russia is the heart of darkness and, by way of Trump, has succeeded in exercising control over key elements in the new administration.

Unfortunately, people in the media like Ignatius and Maddow are not alone. Their willingness to sell a specific political line that carries with it a risk of nuclear war as fact, even when they know it is not, has been part of the fear-mongering engaged in by Democratic Party loyalists and many others on the left. Their intention is to “get Trump” whatever it takes, which opens the door to some truly dangerous maneuvering that could have awful consequences if the drumbeat and military buildup against Russia continues, leading Putin to decide that his country is being threatened and backed into a corner. Moscow has indicated that it would not hesitate use nuclear weapons if it is being confronted militarily and facing defeat.

The current wave of Russophobia is much more dangerous than the random depiction of foreigners in negative terms that has long bedeviled a certain type of American know-nothing politics. Apart from the progressive antipathy towards Putin personally, there is a virulent strain of anti-Russian sentiment among some self-styled conservatives in congress, best exemplified by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Graham has recently said “2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russia in the ass in Congress.”

It is my belief that many in the National Security State have convinced themselves that Russia is indeed a major threat against the United States and not because it is a nuclear armed power that can strike the U.S. That appreciation, should, if anything constitute a good reason to work hard to maintain cordial relations rather than not, but it is seemingly ignored by everyone but Donald Trump.

No, the new brand of Russophobia derives from the belief that Moscow is “interfering” in places like Syria and Ukraine. Plus, it is a friend of Iran. That perception derives from the consensus view among liberals and conservatives alike that the U.S. sphere of influence encompasses the entire globe as well as the particularly progressive conceit that Washington should serve to “protect” anyone threatened at any time by anyone else, which provides a convenient pretext for military interventions that are euphemistically described as “peace missions.”

There might be a certain cynicism in many who hate Russia as having a powerful enemy also keeps the cash flowing from the treasuring into the pockets of the beneficiaries of the military industrial congressional complex, but my real fear is that, having been brainwashed for the past ten years, many government officials are actually sincere in their loathing of Moscow and all its works. Recent opinion polls suggest that that kind of thinking is popular among Americans, but it actually makes no sense. Though involvement by Moscow in the Middle East and Eastern Europe is undeniable, calling it a threat against U.S. vital interests is more than a bit of a stretch as Russia’s actual ability to make trouble is limited. It has exactly one overseas military facility, in Syria, while the U.S. has more than 800, and its economy and military budget are tiny compared to that of the United States. In fact, it is Washington that is most guilty of intervening globally and destabilizing entire regions, not Moscow, and when Donald Trump said in an interview that when it came to killing the U.S. was not so innocent it was a gross understatement.

Ironically, pursuing a reset with Russia is one of the things that Trump actually gets right but the new left won’t give him a break because they reflexively hate him for not embracing the usual progressive bromides that they believe are supposed to go with being antiwar. Other Moscow trashing comes from the John McCain camp which demonizes Russia because warmongers always need an enemy and McCain has never found a war he couldn’t support. It would be a tragedy for the United States if both the left and enough of the right were to join forces to limit Trump’s options on dealing with Moscow, thereby enabling an escalating conflict that could have tragic consequences for all parties.

Hide 167 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. john cronk says: • Website

    Well said.

    • Replies: @moi
  2. Mr Giraldi,
    Finally someone has made the connection. Our parents brought us Vietnam. Now the
    Boomers are in control and look at the wars they have brought us. I went to Vietnam.
    I call these the “HIPPY WARS. Peace and Love has brought us war without end.
    Regards to Ray McGovern when you see him. I worked with him on the BUSH COMMISSION.

  3. The election of Donald Trump to the presidency put a halt to the White Liberal’s plans to 1) homo-pedophile norm the US and 2) to permanently transform the US demographically.They are freaking out over this.

    Christian Russia must be destroyed because Christian Russia is admired by Trump’s White Voting Bloc as an example of a successful European Conservative Christian alternative to the Neo-Liberal-homosexual-pedophile economic-social-cultural filth model of economic development.

    European Christian Russia is the threat of a good example. The homosexual-pedophiles were getting ready to party to exhaustion on Nov 8 2012 to coronate the old farting pantsuit wearing fat-assed bulldyke Queen. This is why the biological abnormality Rachel Maddow wants to thermonuclear exterminate Christian Russia.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
  4. john cronk says: • Website

    Philip, I really appreciate your astute reasoning but have been studying and spending time in Croatia for a few years and fail completely to understand your take on the Balkan war of the 1990s.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Kiza
  5. It’ s not really about Libs vs Cons.

    It’s about the power and domination.

    They just hide behind ideological labels to give them moral justification.

    Notice how Liberal Anglos and Conservative Anglos were both expansionist.
    Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

    Notice how Neocons and Liberal Zionists also seek global domination.

    It’s the power.

    PS. Whatever Jews say about Russia is pure projection. They accuse Russia of doing to the US what they did to the US already. US is ruled by Zio-Glob after all.
    And given what the globalists did to Russia in the 90s(a terrible crime that led to 10 million premature deaths), it is sickening to see all this anti-Russian hysteria.

    What globalists did to Russia in the 90s was 1000x worse than whatever Russia may have done to the US.

  6. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I think the kind of people who join the US military think like coaches and athletes.
    They see world affairs as some kind of game and sports.

    They just want to feel important by looking for opponents.

    Trump probably knows this mentality since he has promoted sports.

    I mean how do you get people interested in the next fight? You gotta promise them a good show.
    If you say One side is much more powerful than the other side, it’s no fun.
    But if you say it’s like King Kong vs Godzilla, people get interested.

    When Mike Tyson was beating everyone, people got disinterested in boxing. It was no contest.

    People got interested when Tyson got beat, and it got competitive again.

    The sort of jock-morons who join the US military think like college football coaches.

    So, hyping Russia as Ivan Drago is just part of the game.

    So dumb though.

    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    , @Jimbank
  7. Lit Dog says:

    Great article tying together several threads Phil has given us in recent weeks. As he pointed out last week, the Flynn decapitation may have been a sacrifice of one of their own performed for their overarching goal of war with Russia. And here, Phil reminds us that war with Russia means money for the MIC and improved prospects for globalists in places such as Syria, Iran, and Ukraine.

    As far as 60s draft dodgers now being rich war mongers, remember: liars, lie. Much (but not all) of the anti-war movement was self interest. The protestors, including Bill Clinton, didn’t want to serve because it would have been an unpleasant if not fatal sacrifice. But put on a few years, and war becomes their political and economic gain, and someone else’s sacrifice. In the 60s, they said war was immoral. As profiteers, they say war is humanitarian. Bravo to Phil as a man who sacrificed, but now tries to spare others that sacrifice.

    Regarding liars, lying, I wrote a satire about the whoppers leveled against Trump supporters. In my piece, the liar claims to have been killed by Trump supporters (using a nuclear bomb, no less.)

  8. I am one individual who learned to oppose the war party during the Viet Nam era and find it disgusting that erstwhile “progressives” have jumped the shark and gone full fascist backing war crimes and creating the threat of nuclear war along with McCain and his bosom buddy Lindsay Graham on the other side. I find it difficult to stomach those who have degenerated into apologists for war criminals and whose policies by logical extension end in nuclear death. Such individuals are indeed, as Trump sort of indicates in his critique of the lamestream media, enemies of the people who have been coopted by funding from Soros, et al which seems to have neutered websites which formerly took a more sceptical view of power. The apologists for the warfare state are the type who will literally go coprophagic if the democratic party wills it.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  9. I took my basic training at Ft. Leonard Wood in the summer of ’65. Good times.

    You give the war mongers, red and blue, too much credit. Some are psychos. Some are profiteers. Others are merely stupid. All are in the service of evil.

    Russia is not a threat. Anybody who says Russia is a threat is a liar or a fool. Russia is an obstacle to the mad desire to rule the world by force of arms.

    • Agree: Ace
  10. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    If Putin is a thug, Bush is an Ultra-Thug, Obama is a Super-Thug, and Hillary is a Witch-Thug.

    US thugs invaded and murdered far more.

    Thug Bush, Thug Obama, and Thug Hillary need to be brought to War Crimes tribunal.

  11. Good analysis. My only critique is that the “Know Nothing” Party of the 1840s and 1850s was anti-immigration, specifically anti-German and Irish Catholic immigration. I don’t think it was particularly hostile to any foreign countries as such. The “Know Nothings” are now lumped with the Ku Klux Klan as “villanous Americans from the past,” but in light of present immigration, I’m increasingly inclined to think that the “Know Nothing” party was onto something. The descendants of Americans already in the United States around 1850 would have been better off without the German and Irish Catholic immigrants whos admission the Know Nothings opposed.

    The conflicts between the United States and Russia involve no genuinely vital interests of the United States. The persons promoting these conflicts are in the grip of a form of madness.

  12. Meh, when they ended the draft and compulsory military service, they green-lighted all the wars that have come afterward. It’s like jokes, they stop being funny when they start being you. Wars were unacceptable when was your precious ass, when was your children or grandchildren. When it was YOUR legacy, there had better be a damned good reason and there had to be votes and everyone was put on the record.

    Once it was all-vol, it was the farmer’s kids, red-state kids, especially after de-industrialization. See the world, Be All You Can Be, learn a trade, go to college. Then Kuwait, then 9/11, then Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, more Iraq and now they’re dickin’ around with Russia. But it isn’t the former hippies’s kids, the rich or influential or THEIR children going, it’s someone else’s kid and in any case, they’re volunteers, fuggem. Code Pink circa 2003 aside, where are the protests? Where was the left when Obama escalated Afghanistan and got another 2000 troops killed and 10,000 wounded, quite without any votes in Congress? They didn’t care, the media didn’t cover it, it wasn’t their children in any case. And of course, the DC region LOVES a war, good for that particular economy. It isn’t for nothing that Fairfax County, Virginia, home to everyone in the defense industry these days, is the richest region on the planet after all. Worst of all, for the first time, it isn’t the military doing the killing anymore, it’s civilians in Intel, sometimes with the backing of the President (Obama supposedly authorized every kill, but who knows?), but mostly not. Shadowy figures launch Hellfires at wedding parties, kill 60 civilians to get one bad guy (always the Mr. Big), and no one bats an eyelash. Lt. Cally kills a dozen (or whatever number) Vietnamese civilians and gets a Court Martial of his very own. We kill ten times that by mistake all over the Middle East 100 times a year and not a peep because civilian intel guys that make the rules, that push the buttons aren’t accountable. Not to the President, to Congress, to their own bosses. No one cares because we don’t have control of those guys anymore, probably haven’t since Tonkin Gulf. And we don’t care because it isn’t our kids and we even allowed them to make it all secret, that all the easier because it isn’t our kids.

    Does anyone seriously believe for a minute that if every damned kid in the United States was subject to a mandatory draft that we’d have had all these wars and for so long? We don’t even send these deals to Congress anymore, the budgets are all black, classified, cloaked behind the walls of subcommittees and no one know what’s being spent. And who knows if we’re even getting accurate casualty-rates anymore? Until we get everyone’s flesh-and-blood involved once again via a new draft (with NO deferments for college), along with a rapid and rigid return to Constitutional rules granting permission, funding and manpower via on the record voting in both Houses of Congress signed off on by the President, nothing is going to change. Nothing.

    • Agree: The Scalpel
    • Replies: @BigJimSportCamper
  13. We should: not forget that Russians have had nukes pointed at us for 50 years

    We should not: be, as Pat Buchanan put it, “getting in Russia’s face” all over the map. It is not in American interest to do so and in many ways shows weakness. When one cannot rationalize and ration one’s aggression, one signals lack of purpose and confusion, which can be and surely is being exploited. When Red Lines are everywhere Red Lines are nowhere. Consult the British on the point.

    We should: recognize that the existence of an existential threat does not suffice to argue for “cordial” relations. To the contrary, responding to the threat with warm feelings is likely to foment more threat, also consult the British.

    We should not think the Russians are animated by anything but self interest, and we should not think they worry much for American life. See again the nukes that this moment are trained on us.

    And the lefties: they may just opportunistically see this as the fastest way to remove Trump, or with the Right guard they’ve taken for granted so long in the dugout, maybe they are having a moment of clarity, maybe both.

    Either way: Trump’s victory may have used Russia, maybe-maybe not. But it wasn’t about Russia. It was about the direction of the country.

    Only the Russians need it to be about Russia, and they have a gun to your head, literally. I say: drop it. Concede the Russians helped, concede they are the bad guys but better to beat them in a few places that matter than to risk losing where it doesn’t matter (which weakens us and makes it matter).

    And move on, or move back to the point: Keep it on the direction of the country.

    Could be the lefties, could be the Russians, could be the Deep State, but whoever it is, it isn’t you controlling the conversation if we are indulging the luxury of worrying about Trump’s faux friends the Russians.

  14. Ram says:

    The author and I are of the same vintage, but the difference is that I was against the Vietnam War as well as every subsequent aggressive act that followed, whatever the political hue of the aggressor.

  15. mp says:

    Jews hate Russia. If they can’t exploit her people and resources, then they hate Russia even more, and it’s time for war. It’s pretty much as simple as that. Nothing “progressive” about it, unless that’s how you define the word. Fact is, one can replace the word Russia with the name of almost any country (with the possible exception of Israel), and the sentence remains coherent.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    , @SPQR70AD
  16. If we aren’t vigilant, the Kremlin is going to organise its 145 million or so people and their \$1.2 trillion economy and one aircraft carrier group to go on full war-footing with the 325 million of us plus circa 500 million europeans and our combined \$35 trillion economies and somewhat larger military forces deployed to ring Russia.

    Wow, now I can see why everyone is in a tizzy about Russia, and for that matter why the Norks are also seen as a major threat.

  17. DaveE says:

    The Rachael Maddow’s of the world no more represent Democrats than the neocon filth (you know the names even if you don’t speak Hebrew) represent Republicans. Both parties have been co-opted by the same ethnic Mafia. Talking about “progressives” as if they were anything but Jewish totalitarians (and their useful idiots) is a complete waste of time.

    The only consequential difference is that leftist Jews are a little more sophisticated in disguising their totalitarian ambitions with some “let’s help the little guy” BS. “Power to the People” is really “Power to the Chosen People”. That is, government in control of every aspect of your life, with Jews in control of every aspect of the government.

    It’s an old game, straight out of the Torah.

  18. JackOH says:

    Philip, thanks. Your article had me head-scratching whether there are politically “structural” reasons why, in my 60-some years, America seems to have never been without an enemy du jour for which military intervention is a solution. Is it because the great many corporate lobbies and organized domestic constituencies make domestic politics intractable, a hornet’s nest? Does a call for military intervention have a better risk/reward ratio for the hustling politician?

    FWIW-I’m seeing a very rough and very unstudied parallel between idle, dysfunctional folks in the ‘hood acting out in violence, and a politically dysfunctional America similarly acting out in violence against the world. I’m embarrassed that I’m thinking that way. What else am I to think when the polity that can’t make my local schools and roads work reasonably well decides to bomb some other bastards into submission?

    • Replies: @Veritatis
  19. Phil

    Larger picture:

    1)Donald Trump wants regime change in Syria..

    2)Donald Trump wants regime change in Moscow…

    3)Donald Trump will bomb Shia Muslim Iran…

    Donald Trump’s MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!! jobs program=1-3…

    The good jobs were already here in the US….they were handed over to Asian Legal Immigrants and their US born Asian GENELINE….

    Donald Trump will poison and frack America’s pristine wilderness areas to create jobs for one billion “Americans”…

    As of today…I despise the Trump-Kushner Dynasty…

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
  20. As usual, Mr. Giraldi has written an excellent article. He has left out the core reason for the insane anti-Russia crusade, however. Russia under Putin, a Russia trying to rebuild its historic Christian roots, is a standing affront to certain people (whether Putin is sincere or this is a cynical ploy by him to revive an authentic Russian nationalism is irrelevant). This turn towards the Russian past enrages a certain part of the Jewish community and, in particular, the spiritual and often literal descendants of the followers of Leon Trotsky. These are the people who brought us the Bolshevik Revolution. Stalin ran Trotsky out of Russia and then, slowly and incompletely, began to remove his followers from power as well. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed a tremendous tsunami of hatred towards Jews had built up in Russia – ordinary Russians understand perfectly well who staffed the Cheka and tried to wipe out their national existence. To be sure many Jews were entirely innocent of participation in Communist crimes and had not benefited over much from them, but that hardly matters in a charged situation such as the fall of an empire. Jews the world over (and especially in the U.S.) are hypersensitive to potential “threats” and they sure saw one in the new Russia. The Kristols in America have used pathetic dupes like McCain and Graham skillfully. They have also used the proverbial ignorance of Americans about world history to convince them that Russia today is the old USSR. It isn’t and, in fact, we have no legitimate fight with Russia over anything. Ukraine’s artificial borders hardly concern us and it is obvious that we were responsible for starting the Syrian “civil war”, with Israel pulling the strings in Washington. These anti-Russian morons should just shut up.

  21. Anonymous [AKA "Anonim"] says:

    The Left is only anti-war if they don’t see that war justified. Fighting Commies wasn’t justified (that was cast as evil Capitalist neocolonialist warmongers attacking progressive freedom fighters to exploit their countries), fighting “fascists” of all kinds was always glorified by them, from the Spanish Civil War. Those wars were always justified in their eyes not for national interests but for ideology. They always had a good guys vs. the bad guys worldview.
    Regarding Russia the establishment knows that Russia is a weak country, a shadow of the former USSR. They think that the job wasn’t finished after the cold war, they want to settle accounts and put Russia to its place. Russia’s current leadership doesn’t know its place as it tries to retain Russian influence in their “near abroad”, so they want to teach them a lesson. Russia having nukes is not a concern, obviously Russia’s leaders aren’t madmen, they won’t kill themselves and have their country destroyed just to take the West with them. So they want to “contain” Russia until US troops are on the Russian-Ukrainian border. Without Ukraine Russia can’t be a power to be reckoned with anymore, and that goal is achieved, Ukraine (except Crimea and the Donbass) was brought under the US sphere, the Ukrainian public has been whipped into a Russophobic frenzy enough to make any friendship between Russia and Ukraine impossible for the next decades. The self-image of that new nation is based solely on Russophobia, despite them being very similar to Russians (culturally very similar groups can hate each other compassionately too as history tells us, Northern Ireland anyone? American Civil War?). So the US strategic goal is achieved here, but the prospect of the new admin being “lenient” towards Moscow threatens this achievement enough for the US establishment to be gravely concerned.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh
    , @SPQR70AD
  22. @Priss Factor

    It’ s not really about Libs vs Cons.

    It’s about the power and domination.

    They just hide behind ideological labels to give them moral justification.

    Notice how Liberal Anglos and Conservative Anglos were both expansionist.
    Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

    Notice how Neocons and Liberal Zionists also seek global domination.

    It’s the power.

    Excellent observations. Also, back then, the “Progressives” such as LaFollette et. al., were truly antiwar. Politics seems to eventually corrupt everything, including the meaning of words such as “liberal,” “conservative,” and “progressive” to name just a few.

    • Replies: @mtn cur
  23. SteveM says:

    One point about American anti-Russian fear-mongering. Consider what Putin’s/Russia’s fundamental strategic objectives are. And ask if the American fear-mongering is consistent with those objectives.

    The Soviet Union is long dead and buried. Post War Poland is a homogeneous country. Poles have a deep historic suspicion of Russia. So Putin would invade Poland for what? To lord over 35 million subversives? The same with the Baltic states that unlike Crimea have only minority Russian populations who are relatively happy with the way things are. So Putin would invade the Baltic states for what strategic objective?

    Putin has no Mein Kampf or Das Kapital in his back pocket. Six years ago Putin with China advanced the concept of a New Silk Road connecting Shanghai with Berlin through Moscow. Because along with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) they see Eurasian cooperation and development as the linchpin for progress. A prosperous Russia via The New Silk Road operating without U.S. hegemonic interference is Putin’s fundamental strategic objective. So what incentive does Putin have to throw a gigantic wrench of military invasion into that machinery?

    The reason for the hyperbolic fear-mongering by American Elites is because that is what they do for a living. And more importantly because the U.S. interventionist Elites see ANY coordinated international activity by Russia and/or China as a “threat” no matter how benign. Why? Because the U.S. insists on being the Global Hegemon now and forever more – over everything. The idea that Eurasia could become a self-contained economic sphere independent of U.S. control infuriates those American Elites.

    Well, whether they like it or not, that chapter of American hegemony is ending.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  24. LondonBob says:

    When wasn’t Russia the enemy? Maybe a brief period after the SU cracked up, maybe a brief period when the other Bush cooperated after 9-11. Otherwise we had Islamism promoted in Central Asia, supporting Chechens, NATO expansion, Serbia, colour revolutions, overthrow of Russian aligned states in MENA, really it never stopped. The big change is Russia can hit back now. If you want global hegemony Russia is a problem, and unlike China not too big that you can’t do a thing about it, nor too alien that they can’t influence our own societies. Of course progressives want global hegemony so they can impose their values on people at the point of a bayonet, and they are right to perceive Russia as an obstacle to this, nonetheless in many ways they remain the useful idiots of the MIC.

    Of course a prominent new cold warrior is the journalist Edward Lucas, of course he is a fellow of an organisation founded way back in 2006. Their who fund us page lists a who’s who of the MIC.
    I would agree it has taken on a life of its own but undoubtedly NATO expansion was about new markets for weapons manufacturers, Central Asian Islamism about keeping Russia and China down, Ukraine partially Zionist payback for Syria etc., the big gay hissy fit over internal Russian laws regarding promotion of homosexuality etc. Too many powerful interest groups have an interest in the new cold war, Trump will need to find some way to mobilise the great bulk of the American people against them.

    • Replies: @gwynedd1
  25. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Why Do “Progressives” Like War?

    Because progressives see war as an instrument of social change, and as a necessary means to eradicate the evil of the world, a task that the more conservative people used to attribute to God. Hence the long-standing liberalist-liberal cult of war, its idolatry to bloodthirsty warlords like Makhno and the Catalan anarchists, after all they intended to create a society free from the evils of the past.

    Even moderate progressives like wars to fight the ‘reactionary’ forces. The German Social-Democrats supported the war in 1914, to eliminate ‘Russian despotism’. Russian liberals like Kerensky and Miliukov were so passionate about the Great War that it would bring ‘freedom for the peoples of the world’ that they did not realize that they were destroying Russia and paving the way for the Bolsheviks. The progressive Woodrow Wilson was onde of the greatest warmongers in the american history.

    Overall, Western liberals and leftists offered little or no opposition to the destruction of socialist Yugoslavia by Clinton, or nationalist Libya by Obama. They questioned only the invasion of Iraq by the conservative Bush administration – which nevertheless had as allies the radical chic Tony Blair and the Polish neo-communist President Kwasnievsky. Some leftist intellectuals supported the invasion of Iraq, the most notorious C. Hitchens. Many more would have done the same if the American president were some Democrat.

  26. Humm…I seems to me that two facts should be addressed here. Fact one: the drumbeat of war against a major nuclear power such as Russia or China is a NON-SURVIVAL ACTION…hundreds, if not thousands of nuclear weapons being in play make for a bad day. Fact two: the USA has NEVER attacked, invaded, or occupied another nuclear power…such a action is also a REALLY BAD IDEA, as they are likely respond in a very negative manner. So,for those highly intelligent people who refuse to acknowledge these two facts, I can only admonish you as follows: Be careful for what you wish for, for you just might get it GOOD AND HARD.

  27. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @War for Blair Mountain

    This is why the biological abnormality Rachel Maddow wants to thermonuclear exterminate Christian Russia.

    There are plenty of the so called “conservatives” who wouldn’t mind annihilating Russia. It is a cross-domain thing. It is just that “progressive” hatred towards Russia is better defined than a “conservative’ one. Both “hatreds” however have a similar impulse behind them in so far as the respective visions of the America go. In both visions US must be everything “good” and “best”, in both visions US must be “exceptional”–be it the so called “progressive” or “conservative” vision. Russia is in the way. This is not to mention a general ignorance of US political-media class about the world in general and Russia in particular.

  28. As this blogger wrote:

    What American liberals stand for: and other delusions
    1) Hillary did not lose the election. Putin arranged for her defeat.
    2) the military-intelligence apparatus should overthrow an elected president and install Hillary or John McCain instead.
    3) there is one truth and one version of events and history: and New York Times and CNN will vomit the truth to the masses.
    4) it is the liberal thing to promote and expand NATO and to nurse the enmity toward Russia.
    5) the US should keep a strong alliance with Gulf tyrannies because it is good for Israel.
    6) Chuck Schumer is the most charismatic and able leader since Alexander the Great.

  29. @exiled off mainstreet

    The apologists for the warfare state are the type who will literally go coprophagic if the democratic party wills it.

    Coprophagic. Good one! I like it.

  30. @Andrei Martyanov


    Interesting comment. Where do Deep South Evangelical Christians stand on Conservative Christian Russia?

    Historically, “conservative” meant socially-culturally conservative Christian+Isolationist. Google Bill Kauffman’s very interesting essay on Dwight D Eisenhower’s older brother who hated the US Military.

  31. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Where do Deep South Evangelical Christians stand on Conservative Christian Russia?

    This I can not say precisely. My guess would be that many would have problems with Russian Orthodox Church and what it represents. This attitude would inevitably reflect on Russia as a nation.

    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
  32. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    All this brings a variety of different interests together in unlikely coalition. A limited, localized war that sets off a new cold war would inject new life into NATO and enable the US to tighten it’s grip on all it’s members. More money for the arms industry can act as a locomotive for the economy. The security-spying state can establish yet more dictatorial laws to ensure the peons don’t get out of line. Under cover of war hysteria all sorts of things can be forced through. Then of course there’s the old MacKinder strategy of driving into Eurasia to tap into the wealth and productivity of much of the world. Russia is an obstacle to this so they have to keep battering away to get them to surrender.
    Big media is owned by the billionaire and corporate class and reflects it’s interests. People like Maddow don’t hire themselves and put themselves on the air. They’re hired employees and without big media sponsoring them they’d be total unknowns. They’re ideological types who have their own motives but are handy in providing cover. For her it’s simply that the enlargement of American power forces other countries to kowtow to American enforced concepts of gay rights. Hillary, as SoS, forced various E European countries to host gay pride parades even though they were hugely unpopular. For people like this the world revolves around their sex proclivities; it can all burn as long as they can fiddle.
    Perhaps it’s a sign of end-stage decadence where the supposed leadership class becomes increasingly unhinged and reckless, where megalomania rules and wars are driven by personal pique. Just a few such people in positions of power could create disaster for many millions.

  33. Phil, nothing to add here. Thanks for your objectivity and transparency. You must be a fellow with no angle! 🙂 Wouldn’t it be nice if all of us could be as forthcoming while serving? Of course, there is the reality that education is mostly wasted on the young – it requires perspective to learn the lessons only time can offer context for.

    Thanks so much – our prayers for you continue.

  34. @Andrei Martyanov

    It’s the Progressives who have trouble with Russian Orthodoxy, with their own LGBTQ pagan opposition, not evangelical Christians. Evangelical opposition in the past was to Soviet atheism, now long abolished. I speak as an evangelical who counted it a miracle for Russians to renounce that tyranny, although certainly not anticipating nor applauding the subsequent predatory and opportunistic Wall Street carpetbagger invasion that reduced the lives of ordinary Russians to penury. But then, evangelicals aren’t those in power in the West, even though their support is sought with vague bromides that never come to pass. A lot voted for Trump, and aside from the economic distress which is very real for so many, Trump’s message of not being hostile to non-communist Russia with its patina of state Christianity also resonated.

  35. joef says:

    Progs want war as long as it does not involve themselves and their children in the fighting. Hippies were antiwar, during Vietnam War era, because they did not want to go, otherwise most of them wouldn’t even care (being the self absorbed selfish brats that they are).

    Further hypocrisy of the progs is that when the Soviets were Communist they could do no wrong. Now that they are Russia under Putin, they can do nothing right and must be challenged (could it be the fact that Putin describes Russia as a Christian nation, a religion that the progs abhors).

    Besides the greed of the military industrial congressional complex wanting perpetual war for profits (again as long at they are not doing the fighting), I believe that this constant call for warfare (Iraq, now Russia) by our political masters is to distract us from our own domestic problems:

    With war they will try to make us forget about:
    – – our low employment participation rate,
    – – underemployment,
    – – savings interest rate that is lower than the inflation rate,
    – – the overhyped stock market,
    – – the trillion of dollars of private debt bubbles (college, automobile, and credit cards),
    – – the national debt now starting to exceed our annual GDP,
    – – failure in education (with declining levels in literacy, science, & mathematics, while being a money pit in property tax),
    – – crumbling infrastructure (whose maintenance was suppose to be budgeted on a annual basis but was not),
    – – eventual Social Security bankruptcy (wasn’t that suppose to be a trust fund taken from your paychecks’ fica deduction),
    – – many urban American cities teetering on default (from perpetual entitlement spending),
    – – anti white race relations with African Americans (which is a problem that even most so called ‘conservative’ Republican pundits & radio hosts will no longer talk about),
    – – and rising urban violent crime (where the real war is, to which when Governors and Presidents take the oath of office, they promise to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic, to which they have failed to do against the domestic side, while meddling unnecessarily on the foreign side).

    War will be pushed by the politicians (of both parties: socialist prog democrats & corporatist neocon republicans), MSM, academia, pundits, lobbyist, and other political lackeys, because the alternative is to have us, the unwashed populist masses, realize what a mess they made of things. And they cannot have that, so war is their only option (and besides there is profit in it…for them).

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  36. Veritatis says:

    I don’t think it’s embarrassing. James Schall, a wise pol sci prof, used to say “a disorder in the polity has its roots in a disorder of the soul”. We can quibble about the specifics, and the foreign policy/social order eruptions, but you’re on target.

    Even 20 years ago, I could not have imagined a US presidential candidate as thoroughly corrupt as Hillary Clinton. That she was the acclaimed candidate tells you something about the state of America’s soul. Best wishes in cleaning house though.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    , @jacques sheete
  37. gwynedd1 says:

    When? Russia wasn’t the enemy in the 19th century and well into the 20th. They should have been American allies against their common European enemies at that time. However the West was able to destroy the Russian empire and cook up the Soviet occupation.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  38. pyrrhus says:

    Progressives like the idea of wars that they, and their kin, are not going to fight.They expect we deplorables to do that…Unfortunately, they have run out of 3d world countries to wreck for the war profiteers, and the American public has caught on to this scam….

  39. nsa says:

    The vile progs and the even more vile cons hate Russia because it is white…especially since its leader has attempted to rein in its indigenous jooies or packed them off to IzzyVille. It is just that simple……HATING ON WHITEY is the motivation. Jooies and their Kosher Media are the driving force behind the hatred. Unlike the hapless Winston Smith, you still have the power to unplug and discard your TalmudVision propaganda box…….but you won’t. Instead you’ll buy a flat screen for every room………..

  40. utu says:

    Left or right distinction does not matter anymore in the US as far as the foreign policy is concerned. A war for oil or war for democracy or war for gay rights is still the same war.

    “immaculate conception of U.S. (foreign) policy”

    “The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis. ”

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
  41. @War for Blair Mountain

    Google Bill Kauffman’s very interesting essay on Dwight D Eisenhower’s older brother who hated the US Military.

    I searched using the non-spying search engine alternative to Google,

  42. Anonymous [AKA "Si Dirst"] says:

    Yes, the anti-Vietnam war crowd, after ducking out of their own military service, now seek to play the war game with other folk’s children as disposable pawns.

    Orthodox Christian Europe-Russia has found its feet and is rapidly rebuilding… overall that’s good news. The US should fully ally with them and rebuild Christendom.

    The idea of using muslims against Russia arose in the US government 40+ years ago under Jimmy Carter. Yes, President Carter got talked into this policy-strategy by his Polish security advisor Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski – a serious Russia hater. Break Russia with muslims, free Poland. Hmm, that worked… let’s try it again.

    The rest is mainly about money & power. The US prints fiat money from paper and forces other countries to take it in exchange for real goods & services; military force is used upon those demanding gold or any non-US \$ payment. This is why Iraq (demanded €) and Lybia (demanded gold) were mikitarily invaded.

    Russia is nuclear armed so they are not easily invaded… so the strategic plan is to hurt their economy, hence sanctions. It is not working… Russia is almost 100% debt free and will be fully debt free by the end of 2017. Hmm, well, what about cutting off Russian sales of oil & gas to Europe ? Well that idea needs Saudi oil & Qatari gas to be able to get up to Europe to replace the Blocked Russian oil & gas… so WE NEED A PIPELINE up to Europe and it needs to transit SYRIA; so THAT’s why Assad is bad, he said “no pipeline” via Syria as it would hurt his ally Russia. That is why the proxy war in Syria is raging; the US is trying to cut Tussia’s financial throat and the Russians know it well.

    Meanwhile, the Russians & Chinese are buying and holding GOLD every month – NOT US \$. This is steadily creating a \$ reserve alternative as the US is addicted to Chinese goods and Europe is addicted to Russian oil & gas. Importantly, Russia & China can see that the US can NOT afford its large global military unless it can pay for it with easly printed fiat US \$. So, Russia & China are playing the long game… trade every month with the US & Europe in US \$ and then trade the US \$ for gold and drag the physical gold in behind their nuclear defense shield. In this long game, financial gravity will weaken the US \$ until US troops have to be brought back to the US due to their increasing overseas financial cost.

    Another way to look at this is, “No taxation without representation.” The US \$’ role as the global reserve currency has allowed it to tax the entire planet simply by printing US \$. As long as the US behaved militarily, this was acceptable. After Clinton bombed Syria and expanded NATO eastward, the Russians and Chinese began to rearm. The 2008 financial crash accelerated their move to physical gold as the new global reserve “currency.”

    China & Russia both know that the US plan is to divide them & conquer. Russia has oil & gas, gold, & military technology. China has gold and very modern manufacturing that supports tradable consumer goods. Both are now self-sufficient in food.

    So, the US has been check-mated. Show military restraint, or give Russia & China a voice in how global taxes are levied and spent, or go financially broke. It’s really that simple. Some will counsel war but that would go nuclear.

  43. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Fran Macadam

    Fran, don’t generalize your personal, however important and valuable, experiences on all US Evangelicals. You are a very educated person (woman, I assume) and, what is admirable, a curious one. In the end, you may read same Phil Giraldi’s superb piece “Old Testament Armed Forces”.

    I also have a first hand experience with American evangelicals. In fact I spoke to a very large congregation prior to 911 and, immediately after–in both cases church was packed. I did it on the request of my good acquaintance, a Evangelical Pastor. We largely parted our ways in 2003 after he was celebrating an invasion of Iraq. I told him where it all will lead, he didn’t like it. Now, during our rare coming together the issue is simply not raised. There are many wonderful people among Evangelicals but their view of the outside world is very strange, to put it mildly. There is very little “love” towards Russia, in fact–a lot of hostility. It is not black and white, of course, but let’s face a fact that majority of the so called Christian Zionists come from Evangelical community. I am totally aware that my experiences, correctly, can be too relegated to the anecdotal category. But facts are a very stubborn thing.

    Per Soviet “communism” and what USSR was. Red pill here is long overdue but then again–it is my firm academic contention now, after 20+ years of having a first hand experience with the US “Russian Studies” field, that it is a wasteland. A huge part of the answer to the problems (some of them dire) the US experiences today lies precisely in this “American” version of the outside world in general and USSR in particular. I am talking about Soviet “threat” after WW II and the truth US is yet to face. It will be painful.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  44. @Anonymous

    MONTY PYTHON’S Eric Idle calling for war with Christian Russia in everyone of his tweets…

  45. I think the term ‘progressive’ needs to be dropped. Just call the bottomfeeders the ‘prog’.

    As for the real power-holders, they are the Glob. And Globalism is about supremacist power.

    Esp after the Cold War, it’s no longer about ideology. I mean homomania, the nonsense about 50 genders, and feminism with pussy-hats yapping to celebrities hardly constitute an ideology.
    Because Giraldi grew up in the 60s when ideology still mattered, he still talks about ideas.
    Today, ideology is merely a ruse of power. Of course, the powerful always manipulated and used ideology(and religion). But in the past, they half-believed it. Communists once really believed that stuff. Today, the ‘communists’ of China and Cuba just invoke it to keep the power for a limited circle of elite. Vietnam too is still ruled by the communist party, but they will take bribes from homomania and allow ‘pride’ parades if it means more US aid.

    Just look at Hillary’s ‘progressive’ alliance of feminists, Muslims, globalists, Wall Streeters, illegal lettuce pickers, hipsters, rapper misogynists, feminist rape hystericists, Palestinians, Zionists, Sikhs, Hindu Silicon Valley plutocrats, Hollywood vanity peddlers, homo narcissists, and etc. There’s no underlying ideology there. Just self-interest of various ethnic or ‘gender’ groups held together by KKKrazy Glue. An ‘ideology’ that invokes fuzzy wuzzy ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ to push globalism.

    Now, is globalism about equal power and wealth for ALL peoples? No, it’s mainly about corrupted Jews and Anglos(in cahoots with homo internationale) trying to gain control of everything. And venal Chinese and Hindus are looking to grab theirs too.

    How will it all play out? It makes less sense to look to ideology than to ethnicity and the various systems of aptitudes and attitudes.

    END OF HISTORY is the BEGINNING OF HEGEMONY. One-world hegemony impossible in the past.

    In the end, it’s not about ‘liberal democracy’ or some such idea. Sure, liberal democracy is nice, but what really makes a system work is a combination of race/genes, culture, values, work ethic, manners, habits, and attitudes.

    -cracy means “denoting a particular form of government, rule, or influence”

    Consider some of the Bio-Cultural Ruling Systems:

    Germanocratic(includes Scandinavia and is close to Anglocracy)
    Sinocratic(of which even Japan may be a part)
    Indocratic(hindu stuff)

    What is one to assess the power of these -cracies?

    I would argue that Anglocracy without democracy works better than Afrocracy with democracy. Anglocracy is a system of rule by sober, serious, intelligent, and well-mannered peoples(before UK allowed the yobs to run wild). Consider Hong Kong. Under most of British rule, it was no democracy. It was Anglocratic in terms of elite rule. And most of HK society was Sinocratic, managed by Chinese as middlemen and workers. And it worked. How did it work without ‘liberal democracy’ if democracy is so essential to success? Cuz Anglocracy was clean and efficient, and Sinocracy was sober and hardworking. Singapore was also the result of fusion of Anglocracy and Sinocracy. And even today, Singapore is not a liberal democracy. But things run well there cuz Sinocracy, though not very innovative, is serious and intelligent.

    Now, I’m not knocking liberal democracy or ideology perse. But the REAL reason why one system works and another doesn’t has MORE to do with combo of genes, values, work ethic, manners, and attitudes.
    In the 19th century, France was sometimes ‘democratic’ whereas Germany was ruled by imperial system. And yet, Germans surged ahead, even surpassing UK in industry and many academic/scientific fields. How was that possible when Germany didn’t have liberal democracy? Cuz its Germanocratic virtues were harder version of Anglocracy.

    Israel proves that Judeocracy works very well too.

    Indocracy(maybe Hinducracy) is a mixed bag cuz of caste legacy and genetic diversity of India. It works in some ways, in other ways it’s a mess.

    But Afrocracy? You can instruct Africans in all the liberal democratic theories around the world. It won’t do much good. African genetics leads to Africanization of society. And African manners, temperament, and etc lead to social chaos, though I don’t mind when they talk about how homos ‘eat da poo poo’. But the very failure of Afrocracy may lead to a kind of brutal success. The sheer Afro-savagery has led to tons of wild sex and breeding. In conjunction with Western cult of the magic negro and special concern for blacks, rising black population due to African moral failure means millions of Negroes gaining access to the West and taking over like the Sea Peoples of Ancient History. Actually, it will be worse than Sea People invasions. After all, even though the Sea Peoples(a Near Eastern people) were invasive and destructive, they had the genetic potential to build civilization. It’s like Germanic, Celts, and Turks could be invasive and destroy stuff all over… but they also could build upon the destruction and invasion. Germanic folks later built civilization. So did the Turkics. And Celtics. In contrast, black Africans have not proven civilizational capability. Europeans Europeanize wherever they go. Asians Asianize. Arabs Arabize. Hindus hinduize. Some build civilizations better than others. White Europeans have demonstrated best ability to build and make progress. Africans have proven they have the least ability to build stuff. Africanization is mostly destructive. So, African takeover of Europe will be totally different from Germanic Barbarian conquests or even Turkic or Moorish invasions. It will spell the end of civilization, a permanent Detroitization of the world. A Europe that is Africanized is finished forever. It will not be a dark age followed by new beginning. It will be permanent dark age… like most of black Africa.

    Now, compare Anglocracy vs Latinocracy.

    Some will say US made more progress cuz of liberal democracy whereas Latin America came later to democracy. But really?
    Is ‘liberal democracy’ really such a charm-of-making? But Mexico in late 19th century was democratic whereas Germany wasn’t. Yet, Germany did so much more. And Japan, though undemocratic, achieved more than Mexico from late 19th century to WWII era.

    And compare US vs Argentina. The latter had so much potential and had democracy, but why did it lag? Latins ruled with their own attitudes and styles different from Anglocratic modes. Such will build and maintain civilization, but not a very efficient and sober one.

    I would argue that even if the Brits had won the war and American Independence has been crushed, the US under Anglocratic rule(of British) would have achieved nearly just as much.

    Slavocracy? Russia existed for much much longer than the US. And it had many more people than the US in the 19th century. But in short time, Anglos swept across the continent and created a great powerful nation. In contrast, Russians were still digging dirt on the same plot like they’d been for many centuries. Russians then went for communist revolution. It too failed. Why? Cuz Anglocracy has a great combo of order and individuality. It empowers each person as a free agent. But it also instills order and unity and common purpose. In contrast, Slavocratic model was to treat people like cattle, either as serfs or comrades. So, the sense of initiative and responsibility didn’t develop in the Russian heart and mind.
    But one good thing about Slavocratic heaviness is greater sense of roots and belonging. In contrast, the Mercurean mobility of Anglocracy may have led to too much atomization and deracination in the end. Of course, Anglocrats of the past understood this danger. This is why they balanced out their globo-mobility with British patriotism, loyalty to Queen, Anglican Church, and race-ism. As Anglocrats were high-spiritedly moving all around the world, there was the danger of becoming one with the natives. So, race-ism was necessary to maintain British unity and uniqueness. And it was good for the natives too since white race-ism meant white men were discouraged from sexually exploiting the native womenfolks. In contrast, the Latinocrats led to much more sexual abuse of local womenfolk in other lands. Hopkins has impressive race-ist attitude in THE BOUNTY. Good man.

    Judeocracy is very formidable but complicated. Jews have so long operated by latching onto OTHER peoples that one wonders how it would do on its own. Israel is such an experiment, but even it is heavily dependent on the support of great powers. So, the jury is still out on the true power of Judeocracy as an independent ruling system.

    Slavocratic model:

    In the globalized age, we may homocracy that works closely with Judeocracy.

    What we have is Anglo-Judeo-Homocracy fused together in seek of globalist dominance. It invokes ideology of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’, not least because their rapacious economic machinations and warmongering creates so many ‘refugees’.
    In that sense, there’s been a corruption of Anglocracy and Judeocracy because they are now like the dog with bone in mouth that wants the bone reflected in the ocean too. Their corruption is evident in their alliance and reliance on homocracy. Homos being homos,their power vanity is so bitchy and narcissitic. In a way, the GLOB hates Milo because his flamboyant homo style gives away the game of homo sensibility: All about ‘me, me, me’… though I do respect Thiel and Greenwald as homos with genuine conscience and courage to do what they believe is right. But two swans don’t make a summer.

    There used to be a time when Anglocracy was willing to share global power with other -cracies, such as Francocracy, the highest form of Latinocracy. Also, Anglocracy split into US power and UK power, and that kept some kind of balance. Today, the US totally owns UK, Canada, Australia, and etc. And the US is no longer about american power but Anglo-Judeo-Homocractic monopoly of all power.

    • Replies: @Zenarchy
  46. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    No, the new brand of Russophobia derives from the belief that Moscow is “interfering” in places like Syria and Ukraine. Plus, it is a friend of Iran.

    These are very important but do not constitute the root cause of anti-Russian hysteria across whole US political (ideological) spectrum.

    • Replies: @Zenarchy
  47. @Jim Christian

    Not just no, HELL no. There was a draft going on during Vietnam, how many drafted kids got ground up before the war and the draft were ended, in that order? And if you really think that the children of the 1% will actually get drafted you are delusional. Not a goddadmn chance. But they will take your kids, and mine. Well, it’s your great idea, yours first. Mine? Over my dead body.

  48. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Lib or Con, Prog or Fascist, almost no one understands what the game is about.

    Rather, people seek in politics for emotional gratification. In this pursuit, the contingencies of reward, both for the masses and for the media figures who guide the masses, are arranged by the largely unknown manipulators seeking to establish a global empire.

    Liberals and progressives are motivated in part by the joy of hating “haters”, “fascists”, “racists”, etc., and in part by their sense of moral superiority which derives from their, “tolerance,” their inclusiveness, and their readiness to trash their own tribe to the advantage of people from elsewhere — people, many of whom, feel only contempt for liberals and progressives.

    Conservatives are driven both by an inbred resistance to change and an awareness of the genocidal consequences of liberalism: namely, reproductive failure and the occupation of their living space and then the ranks of their government by people of an alien race, religion and culture.

    Meantime, the drive for global empire, directed by the money power, the banks, the global corporations and the dynamic elements of the plutocracy, the likes of Zuckerberg and Soros, continues. The objective? The destruction of the nation states, particularly the powerful Western states that have dominated the globe for the last several centuries.

    Hence the money power backing to the liberals and progs in their campaign of hate against conservatives, and their war on patriotism, Christianity, traditional sexual morality and even of sexual identity.

    The end result? A world of both bridges AND walls, c.f. Mark Zuckerberg. The nation states will dissolve as the nations themselves, particularly the European nations, are annihilated. The mongrelized masses will survive as best they can under conditions of increasing poverty, as competition both from immigrants and robots drives down the value of labor, while the elite live behind the safety of walls, traveling by helicopter or, perhaps as Elon Musk envisages, by private tunnel.

    It’s a replay of the Roman empire, first attempted by the British. The alleged British racist, Enoch Powell, for example, was an imperialist who promoted the idea of Imperial citizenship. Under his scheme, the Brits were to be submerged in a sea of hundreds of millions of Asians and Africans. It was Enoch Powell, in fact, who instigated the importation of cheap West Indian labor to Britain in the 1950’s. Only when the failure of the British imperial project became undeniable did Powell speak out against mass immigration to Britain.

    The US has adopted the same Roman/British plan: subjugate the world and admit the world to US citizenship. Hence the Obama:Merkel:Lib/left hatred of patriotism, nationalism, and traditional morality that conduces to national reproductive health.

    • Replies: @Bianca
  49. Zenarchy says:
    @Priss Factor

    Indocracy(maybe Hinducracy) is a mixed bag cuz of caste legacy and genetic diversity of India. It works in some ways, in other ways it’s a mess.

    Not because of genetic diversity. Many among smartest Indians have extremely diverse genetics.

    The main problems are:
    – identity politics related to caste and regional linguistic identities.
    – legacy of Victorian imperialism and morality that is being removed too slowly due to Indian conservatism
    – legacy of Muslim invasions and rule
    – perennial selfishness similar to Zionism

    And secondly, don’t reduce Slavs to Russians. Russians are not typical Slavs. Those would be Poles and Ukranians, followed by Belarussians, Southern Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Slovenes.
    Among these, Slovenes and Czechs have high PISA scores, are the most developed and richest among former commie countries, have low crime rates, low military spending, high percentage of atheists, and other factors of progress. BUT, these are at least partly due to longstanding Austrian influence which made them more hardworking and disciplined than other Slavs. See, Slavs can improve. 🙂

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Andrei Martyanov
  50. Zenarchy says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Many reasons for many people.

    Slavophobia. Distrust of Russian Jews. Memory of Jewish Bolshevism, which they believe was Russian. Conservative Christian Russia. Russia with a huge number of abortions. Russia that is distrustful of Protestants and Catholics. Pushy (Jewish) oligarchs. Putin’s bizarre public image of being a killer. Russia with low taxes for the rich. Russia which spends a lot on pensions and other policies that have massively helped poor and old people.

    Left, center, right – everyone can hate Russia if they want.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  51. The Scalpel says: • Website

    So very true. Pack mentality. It is the genetic survival mechanism of birds of a feather.

  52. Jake says:

    How else can Trotsky make the Revolution global? War is required, permanent war, because once you have won the war, you must war continuously to keep the peace.

    Liberals always are happy to kill widely and deeply in order to spread their revolution.

    American Liberals are now gunning up to wage righteous war against the rest of America in order preserve the peace of American Liberalism, and then to force the evil Russians to accept that peace.

  53. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    You merely listed “symptoms”, however important they maybe, not the root cause of the illness. The illness is at home, that is inside US, in her “political class” or what today goes under the title “elites”.

  54. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Among these, Slovenes and Czechs have high PISA score… BUT, these are at least partly due to longstanding Austrian influence which made them more hardworking and disciplined than other Slavs.”

    Right, they are ethnically Slav but culturally closer to Germanocracy.

    Poles are somewhere in between: Either civilized Russians or lazy Germans.

  55. mtn cur says:
    @jacques sheete

    It’s the power for the puppet masters but a fashion statement for the parade chasing idiots.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  56. @War for Blair Mountain

    The election of Donald Trump to the presidency put a halt to the White Liberal’s plans to 1) homo-pedophile norm the US and 2) to permanently transform the US demographically.

    Wishful thinking, alas. It should be clear by now that the Empire considers the election of Donald Trump no more than an annoyance. An outsider with no political machine of any kind behind him, reviled by the Establishment in both major parties, and–most critically–the sworn enemy of the MSM. Not much will change: the Empire will see to that.

    If you really want change in this country, it’s the MSM, not the President, that you need to replace. Please tell me how we’ll make that happen.

  57. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    majority of the so called Christian Zionists come from Evangelical community

    They’re a strange American mutation of Christianity. The US has spawned a lot of ‘make it up as you go along’ sects from snake handlers and glossolalia to Mormonism. If a person is looking for rationality or logical reasoning then don’t look in that direction.

    • LOL: Seamus Padraig
  58. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Among these, Slovenes and Czechs have high PISA scores, are the most developed and richest among former commie countries

    LOL. Nothing personal per se against Czechs and Slovenians.

    • Replies: @utu
  59. utu says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    By many measures Czechia and to some extent Slovenia offer one of the best standard of livings in Europe. Do not look just at \$\$ but at life quality, family, tradition. Czechs unlike many others are very aware of their own qualities and superiority of their own way of life, so they were the ones who managed to resists the neoliberal onslaught after communism much better than Poland or Hungary.

  60. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    so they were the ones who managed to resists the neoliberal onslaught after communism much better than Poland or Hungary.

    So, that is why they had late Frank Zappa as their Culture Minister (I can listen to Zappa’s music all year long, I would escape the nation where he would be a Culture Minister) and are known today as the main European destination for sex tourism? Good resistance, I say. As per “developed”–that is the issue with the definition. Czechs (and Slovenians) surely have a decent standard of living but all depends on how one, yet again, define it. How about Russia having highest in the world percentage of population with what amounts to AA degree and higher? Does this count? I remember some “Western” economists making the case for Chile being “developed” based upon having highest per capita number of ATM Machines in 1990s.

  61. Agent76 says:


    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

  62. @Kyle McKenna

    If Donald Trump is removed from office by the Democratics…it will ignite a violent race war the next day…this is how things will evolve forward…

    • Replies: @joef
  63. @utu

    Well, the only country that managed to resists the neoliberal onslaught in that general area is, of course, Belarus. And as I hear, indeed life is good there.

    • Agree: utu
  64. Art says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    European Christian Russia is the threat of a good example.

    Most everyone cannot fathom just how much hatred for Christians dominates Jew life and politics. Jesus and his philosophical idealism is the enemy of the Jew.

    Russia is the now only major nation where Christianity plays a significant role in its life.

    All these US Gentile Russia haters are doing the dirty work of the Jew – destroying the very thing that made America good in the first place.

    Christianity brought the conditions that allowed an imperfect freedom to happen in America. It is obvious, that as we abandon Christianity, our freedoms are going with it.

    Peace — Art

  65. Sparkon says:

    #35 joef says:

    Hippies were antiwar, during Vietnam War era.

    The truth is that the original anti-war movement in the United States – whose members had heretofore been called “Peaceniks” – was co-opted by the Hippies in the early to mid-60s in what proved to be an effective effort to splinter, marginalize, and discredit the nascent peace movement by associating it with long hair, free love, and marijuana.

    It wasn’t until returning U.S veterans of the Viet Nam War had gained a critical mass that the anti-war movement regained both legitimacy and direction, which helped bring that tragic, senseless war to an end.

    All the Hippies succeeded in doing was bringing the law down hard on everyone’s head, and providing plausible justification for accelerating the War on Drugs.

    But whether or not either the Peaceniks, or the Hippies, could accurately be called Progressives is difficult for me to resolve, and a moot point anyway, in light of today’s predilection for loose, sloppy language, and the games people play with words.

    Of course, I am not talking about Philip Giraldi, who is an outstanding writer with a valuable perspective, and one of the major reasons I now read daily at The Unz Review.

    But until someone can produce a precise, universally accepted definition of Progressive I’d hesitate to assign likes or dislikes to such an ill-defined collection of interests, whose meaning has evolved over time. Indeed, these word games are a significant part of the problem, because for the mindbenders, media masters, and their wordsmiths, equivocation is not only fair play, but a regular tactic, as is ad hom, and virtually the entire suite of logical fallacies.

    Beyond that, when even illogic fails, there’s always the Grand Lie, like intercontinental drones, or attacking PT boats that can be used to Light My Fire, or yours.

    The late Dave McGowan’s Weird Scenes Inside Laurel Canyon sheds a lot of brilliant light on the connections between your favorite 60s musician, the Hippies, the MIC, and even my previous paragraph.

    I’d always been a little suspicious about the sudden, sensational appearance of the Fab Four as a perfect and timely distraction from that little business down in Dallas the previous November. It’s really amazing that the moptops, none of whom could either read or write music, were nevertheless able to lay down such an incredible streak of hits as the Beatles did in the Spring of ’64, my senior year in high school, and continuing for several years thereafter, during which time the Beatles were knighted by the Queen, whom the Rolling Stones had honored with their album: Their Satanic Majesties Request, if you need any further q’s to watch with your p’s.

    By August 1964, I was down at Lackland AFB in my 3rd week of Basic when my training flight was awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of a nearby B-52 wing going on full alert: Admiral Morrison’s destroyer flotilla was doing its phantom dick-dance with the reputed PT boats halfway ’round the world, and the Air Force was revving up its bombers.

    By the time my two hitches in the AF were up, virtually all of my fellow vets at university were against the war, despite our disparate majors, interests, and backgrounds.

    The last hurrah of the anti-war movement seems to have been the massive 2003 protests in the United States and Europe during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

    People took to the streets because the propaganda was so transparently bogus, with the actual news reports casting doubt on, or even contradicting, the lurid headlines.

    But the peace marches did no good. The U.S. invaded a sovereign nation, deposed its leader, and left the place in chaos and ruins.

    Since then, those with anti-war sentiments have abandoned the streets, and taken to the internet, where there are new kinds of Hippies to lead us astray.

    • Replies: @joef
    , @Seamus Padraig
  66. joef says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    If Donald Trump is removed from office by the Democratics…it will ignite a violent race war the next day

    Trump will probably never be removed… but like LBJ, I can see him quit re election, in 4 years, from political exhaustion (albeit for different reasons). The progressive socialist dems, and the neocon corporatist republicans (who mischaracterize themselves as Conservatives) will legislatively obstruct him on a semi constant basis, with most of Trump’s agenda being impeded. They will not allow him to succeed, thus hurting the discouraged/underemployed American workers who are in economic desperation.
    This will be done while both parties push for war to distract us from our national decay.

    In addition the leftist have filled Blacks with anti white nonsense (which further destabilizes any form of social cohesion) to which most Blacks have naively swallowed hook, line, & sinker. At this point it is probably very unrealistic to believe that you can actually remove the anti white bias from afro thinking (nor its resultant antisocial violent behavior).

    When a house is irreparable sometimes the only solution is to condemn & demolish it, so a new one can be built in its place. It is difficult to have a vested interest in a culture/society that has reached such a high level of deterioration as we have now. If Trump fails, and households are nor longer economically viable, then there will be a further erosion in having a vested interest in whats left. At that point many hard working people will give up on a country that has turned against them. They will just stand on the sidelines and not invest their efforts into maintaining what has become a failed system for them. Once that happens the entitlement system itself will be in jeopardy of collapsing from nonsupport. Without those government transfer payments for afro handouts, you may then see the race war that you talked about.

  67. Democratic Party Family Values!!!=PUSSY RIOT desecrating Russian Orthodox Christian Churches…

    • Replies: @JayHobeSound
  68. Donald and Melania Trump Family Values!!!=Threaten the children of Christian Russia with thermonuclear extermination over Crimea…

  69. Bring back the draft and levy a 10% war tax every time we feel the need to export a little democracy to some new garden spot on the globe. Not a cure all, but a good start.

    The politicians’ appetite for this immoral nonsence is far greater than the peoples.

  70. joef says:

    where there are new kinds of Hippies to lead us astray

    Thank you for your informative comments. I was mainly concentrating on the hypocrisy of the antiwar hippies. I also believe that the current peace movement among progs is just as hypocritical. I saw progs protest Bush’s Iraqi Freedom war (a war that, from a Conservative perspective, I did not agree with), but they were totally silent when Clinton bombed the hell out of Serbia, or when Obama bombed Libya. Modern war has become political theatre to distract us from our own national problems.

  71. The sad 21st Century washed-up radical, Bob Dylan:

    “”It’s Alright, Ma, only Radical Islam is bleeding.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  72. JackOH says:

    Veritatis, thanks, and also for the reference to Prof. James Schall, S. J. I did a quick scan of his Wikipedia page. I dislike my characterization of American foreign policy as “gangbanger-ized”, and, I suppose, I likewise think of domestic policy as “racketeer-ized”, but, good Lord, when you examine the detailed history of our interventions and policies, what else can one think?

    FWIW-libertarians, isolationists, and many traditional conservatives have, I think, long noted how warfare distracts people from government aggrandizement and encroachment on civil liberties, property rights, and so on. The notion of governance by permanent war is repugnant, but, again I’m not sure what else to think?

  73. @Anonymous

    Basically, everything you say here is true.

    THAT’s why Assad is bad, he said “no pipeline” via Syria as it would hurt his ally Russia. That is why the proxy war in Syria is raging; the US is trying to cut Tussia’s financial throat and the Russians know it well.

    That’s true as well, although you did leave something else important out: Syria was already pledged to a pipeline originating in Iran and passing through Iraq before reaching them.

  74. @Anonymous

    Without Ukraine Russia can’t be a power to be reckoned with anymore

    Why? Please, provide your proof.

    I see that you smoked too much Brzezinsky. I only ask do you have your own opinion.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  75. Anonymous [AKA "EwanC"] says:
    @john cronk

    It wasn’t a reference to the war in Croatia – he was clearly talking about the ’99 intervention in Serbia/Kosovo. Granted, that’s hardly “the heart of Europe” but a bit of poetic licence is to be expected.

  76. @Chris Bridges

    Russians understand perfectly well who staffed the Cheka and tried to wipe out their national existence.

    Do you have any proof that Cheka (whatever you understand by that – OGPU? NKVD?) tried “wipo out” my, Russian, existence. Thanks in advance.

  77. Jason Liu says:

    You’re thinking like a right winger. The left doesn’t really care about geopolitics, they fear Russia because Russia represents an enemy to their social values. As in nationalism, inequality, etc.

    The left is more than willing, and feels morally justified to use violence in the name of anti-racism, anti-sexism, and so on. It’s always been that way, they just hide it better when they don’t feel threatened.

    • Replies: @joef
  78. @Sparkon

    I think the original anti-war movement were the America First Committees of the 1930s, who heeded Smedley Butler’s observation that “war is a racket” and tried (unsuccessfully, of course) to prevent America’s entry into WWII. Frank Roosevelt, though, had other ideas …

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  79. @Lyttenburgh

    Well, without Sebastopol Russia certainly could not be a naval power, as they would then have no ports that weren’t frozen at least half the year; not to mention the fact that their southern flank would be vulnerable to attack. Now you understand their annexation of Crimea.

    • Replies: @Lyttenburgh
  80. @Seamus Padraig

    Well, without Sebastopol Russia certainly could not be a naval power, as they would then have no ports that weren’t frozen at least half the year; not to mention the fact that their southern flank would be vulnerable to attack.

    Your knowledge of the geography is… typical.

    Here is a table of all Russian ports. Not-freezing ones are highlighted in blue. Knock yourself out.

    Now you understand their annexation of Crimea.

    We didn’t annex anything – period. If the Western MSM and butthurt Ukrs believe in that it doesn’t mean that the people still capable of higher cognitive functions should.

    P.S. It’s Sevastopol.

  81. @mtn cur

    It’s the power for the puppet masters but a fashion statement for the parade chasing idiots.

    OMG, if dat ain’t de truth!

    Good one!

  82. these “progressives” are not the same as the old progressives.

  83. @Veritatis

    James Schall, a wise pol sci prof, used to say “a disorder in the polity has its roots in a disorder of the soul”.

    Amen to that! You and he both speak de truth. And to think that the likes of P Buchanan and many many other “experts” think that imposing tariffs and building walls and demonizing Muslims and Putin and generally threatening and kicking ass are remedies for what ails us.

    Good grief.

    • Replies: @Veritatis
  84. @Seamus Padraig

    There were pretty strong antiwar sentiments prior to US involvement in WW1, to the point that Wilson ran for re-election stating that he kept us out of war. I don’t remember the names of actual groups but socialists, Communists and Republican Progressives ( to name just three groups) of the time were against involvement in Europe’s wars. I believe LaFollette, Borah and Jeanette Rankin were very much against the war as well.

    American and especially British propaganda suckered us in. Germany was very unfairly vilified in much the same way Putin is today and for astonishingly similar reasons. The Brits were masters at fanning the flames of enmity against anyone who even hinted at becoming competition in any way, using the excuse that they were maintaining a so called balance of power in Europe.

    Likewise, US “elites” seem to dread the possibility of Russia and China linking up and will lie like Hell to make them appear as the evil ones. Pretty sick stuff.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  85. @mp

    If the wealthy and powerful want war, then there will be war. If the wealthy and powerful want peace, there will be peace.

    Now who are the wealthy and powerful? (Rhetorical Question) They’ll want peace when and if they own all the world’s wealth, and the rest of us are slaves.

  86. @utu

    It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

    It’s mainly the American people who are hypnotised. Most of the world can see the US colossus for what it is, and it ain’t pretty.

  87. joef says:
    @Jason Liu

    When it comes to the American leftist use of violence, most (but not all, some are actually sincere, although misguided) are just pansies. Like the elites, they want others to fight their wars for them. They like to commit violence in social warrior demos until the police get rough back, and then they complain. They like to intellectually bully blue collar working class men, who disagree with them, until they provoke a physically violent outcome. And they blow up people from afar with wanton disregard for human life, or shoot people in the back by ambush, like cowards.

    Their “moral justification” is just an excuse to act like the insufferable entitled cry babies that they really are, who are incapable of dealing with any real hardship in their personal lives. Its not that they hide it better when they don’t feel threatened, its that they hide until they can commit a sneak attack.

    Most Leftist contributed nothing but societal decay, yet they exalt themselves ad nauseam (with a self delusion of being indispensable). They are incapable of surviving without the legal protections of modern society. They would simply die off if things fell apart because they live in a world of make believe accomplishments, living off the host society, mostly incapable of self reliance. Their die off will be of no consequence, as their actual substantive contributions to the necessities of life are in fact minimal. They are disrupters, not builders, and their loss from a die off would be everyone else’s gain. [And even if you are not like that, most of your leftist fellow travelers are!]

  88. Sparkon says:
    @jacques sheete

    Yes, and pacifist sentiments and antiwar activities in the United States go back even further to at least the so-called American Civil War, and we really should not be surprised; after all, what sane person wants war?

    After WWI, Gen. Butler’s book War is a Racket and his nationwide speaking tours helped educate the public about war profiteers, and the strong-arm tactics of big business, which led to formation of the Nye Committee:

    The so-called “Senate Munitions Committee” came into being because of widespread reports that manufacturers of armaments had unduly influenced the American decision to enter the war in 1917. These weapons’ suppliers had reaped enormous profits at the cost of more than 53,000 American battle deaths. As local conflicts reignited in Europe through the early 1930s, suggesting the possibility of a second world war, concern spread that these “merchants of death” would again drag the United States into a struggle that was none of its business. The time had come for a full congressional inquiry.
    The investigation came to an abrupt end early in 1936. The Senate cut off committee funding after Chairman Nye blundered into an attack on the late Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. Nye suggested that Wilson had withheld essential information from Congress as it considered a declaration of war. Democratic leaders, including Appropriations Committee Chairman Carter Glass of Virginia, unleashed a furious response against Nye for “dirtdaubing the sepulcher of Woodrow Wilson.” Standing before cheering colleagues in a packed Senate Chamber, Glass slammed his fist onto his desk until blood dripped from his knuckles.

    In his speech to Congress on April 2, 1917, President Wilson had claimed that the SS Sussex had been sunk by the Germans. Four days later, the United States declared war on Germany. It wasn’t until later, when U.S. troops were fighting in Europe, that some of the truth about the Sussex emerged. The ship had not been sunk, but had wallowed into port after being torpedoed.

    Far from blundering in his attack on Wilson, Rep. Gerald Nye was right on the money, but he learned what Sen. Joe McCarthy was to learn two decades later:

    The truth alone may not suffice.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Sparkon
  89. Kiza says:
    @john cronk

    Do you mean to say that you are objective about the Balkan wars of 1990s because you have spoken to one side for a few years? Well, that would be the US style objectivity, the same one creating all the wars around the globe.

    If the US and Germany did not support dissolution of Yugoslavia (by supporting Slovenian, Croatian, Bosnian Muslim, Albanian, even Montenegrian separatism), there would have been no war. But Yugoslavia served out its purpose of being a buffer zone between the two blocks after WW2, and there was no need for it from the Western standpoint, damn the people who lived in the country.

    Therefore, if you want to point and blame the parties for the Balkan wars of 1990s, then how about you point your finger at the mirror?

  90. Maybe the progs can’t forgive Russia for giving up communism, unlike Cuba, which remains a good country.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  91. Anonymous [AKA "yaffle"] says:

    I have had a profound suspicion of labels since childhood.  Being a youngster during WWII, I could never understand why the Germans were uniquely evil and their Anglo-Saxon brethren were not. Since then, I realise that language can be used to both enlighten and mislead; it can make truth appear false and falsehood seem true.  How can we tell?  Consistency is one way and its reverse, hypocrisy, another. The Ancient Greeks taught the world something about logical fallacies. Labels of ‘right’ and ‘left’ that once had meaning are now totally empty of such meaning. Likewise with ‘liberals’, ‘conservatives’ and ‘progressives’. They once had meanings concerned with trade and exchange among nations, now commingled and confused with ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’.
    Language has lost much of its meaning as is used more to incite emotions leading either to apathy, or else to intemperate and often violent actions such as we are now witnessing. How will it end? Humans now have the ability to wipe out life on earth – by unleashing nuclear radiation willy-nilly, by smothering the earth with greenhouse gases, and by arrogantly manipulating the stuff of life itself, cellular DNA, in a bid to confound and outdo nature.

  92. dfordoom says: • Website

    Progs want war as long as it does not involve themselves and their children in the fighting.

    Agreed, but that hypocrisy is not limited to progs. There are lots of middle-aged and elderly neocons who just love war and they and their children aren’t going to be the ones doing the fighting and the dying.

    A volunteer army is a guarantee that you’ll have endless wars.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @joef
  93. dfordoom says: • Website

    When? Russia wasn’t the enemy in the 19th century

    Not to Americans, but British Russophobia goes back to the very early 19th century. The British saw Russia as a threat to the British Empire, just as the Russia is now seen as an obstacle to America’s imperial ambitions.

    The Crimean War in 1854 was caused by exactly the kind of hysterical media paranoia that we see today.

  94. Anonymous [AKA "GombelGembelines"] says:

    It likes thunderstorms hit voiceless Earth. They are war vocalists hit all billion-people’s geopolitics.

    Military weapons or toys?
    Humanbeings or non-humanbeings?

  95. Progressives like war because there’s money in it. Lots of money.

  96. The very question: Why Do “Progressives” Like War? is wrong. The thing is that “Progressives” changed the tactics: they did not like war before 1991, but became warmongers after 1991. Roughly at that year America became communist and Russia moved to freedom. Almost nobody understands what happened in this palindrome year, but that change determined politics, economy, etc. for the next many decades. There was “peace movement” before 1991 – commies jewish subversives hated US and loved Russia, even sold US nuclear secrets. But then, peaceniks abruptly closed the shop. Later, when Iraq war started I listened how on Tee Vee a female peace activist (she missed the change) was admonished: “This is not the time for peace movement, dear.” That communist change in US dictated to hate Russia that as you know was making steps to become an open society. Briefly, that is the explanation to the initial question, but of course it does not cover all the nuances.

    • Replies: @utu
  97. @Priss Factor

    A lot of truth to what you say. The neocons of America still resent Putin replacing Yeltsin; looting Russia was very profitable for them. As for interfering in our elections, Russia wouldn’t be a patch on Israel’s ass when it comes to that.
    Incidentally, some very wise people have determined that that is how the neocons view Trump – America’s Yeltsin – a fool that they can skin. A fool who will get rid of what few banking regulations we have left; a fool who will cut what scant taxes we have left on the rich; a fool who will praise the “courageous Israelis as they slaughter the Palestinians”.
    As a personal peeve, I wish that there was a clear distinction between “liberal” and “progressive”. To me (and I consider myself a “progressive”), a liberal is a Hillary supporter; and a progressive is a Bernie supporter.

  98. @dfordoom

    A volunteer army is a guarantee that you’ll have endless wars.

    So we do not go abroad in the search of war, we really are searching for peace, but its peace through strength. . . .
    I’ve ordered plan to begin building for the massive rebuilding of the United States military. Had great support from the Senate, I’ve had great from Congress, generally.
    We’ve pursued this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military, and I will tell you that is my – I would be so happy if we never had to use it. But our country will never have had a military like the military we’re about to build and rebuild. We have the greatest people on earth in our military, but they don’t have the right equipment and their equipment is old. I used it; I talked about it at every stop. Depleted, it’s depleted – it won’t be depleted for long. And I think one of the reason I’m standing here instead of other people is that frankly, I talked about we have to have a strong military. -Donald Trump, Feb. 16 2017

    What other things do we “plan to build . . .massively” with the hope that “we will never have to use it?”

    Do we invest massively in highways with the hope that “we will never use them?”

    How about schools? Or sewer systems, waterways and water reservoirs — is it our ardent hope, when building them, that “we will never have to use them?”

    Isn’t it kinda weird to invest \$600 billion in the biggest baddest military in the world, that “we hope we will never have to use,” while refusing to invest in rebuilding 100 year old water lines that are carrying lead-laden waters to our homes?

    • Replies: @RobinG
  99. Didi says:

    Oh my. How much blinder if not sillier can one get. What was the number one issue in the nation before Presidents Kennedy and Johnson began to escalate in Vietnam? You got it. Civil rights. What happened during the escalation? Civil rights disappeared from the agendas. Classic. I do not like the term deep state but I hold that the Vietnam war was foisted upon the nation by the deep state of the time. One can accuse some but not even by a long-shot all progressives that they fell for it.
    Russia? Go back to the years before WW1. For a while Russia was allied with Germany. Then it switched to Great Britain. Both alliances would have brought disaster. The second actually did. Putin may want better relations with us but he knows the history of his country well that is to say he knows how vulnerable his nation is even though it is now the number one crude producer and will always keep us many arm lengths away. That does not warrant an overheated and dangerous anti-Russian policy nor does it warrant too much friendliness. I like neither the Clintonites nor the Trumpists on Russia. Treat Russia like a big Montengro.

  100. @War for Blair Mountain

    Always thought Pussy Riot was less than organic, especially when one or two of the women went on US chat show tour. LoL. Cheers.

  101. Mobar says:

    The “progressive left” may hate Trump because he doesn’t embrace “the usual progressive bromides that they believe are supposed to go with being antiwar”, but there’s way more to it than that. Trump is a know-nothing demagogue and hardly a peacenik. It’s only because Trump (wrongly) believes that Putin praised him, that he happens to likes Putin. That’s all there is to it. Praise him, you’re in. Denounce him, you’re the worst piece of scum that ever lived. Trump’s views on all things are either off the cuff or political ploys to win favor with a certain constituency. Do you really believe that he is against abortion? Give me a break.

    It’s unfathomable why otherwise intelligent people don’t understand why a crude and vulgar narcissistic egotist and consummate liar like Trump is completely unfit to be President. The man is extremely dangerous. Giraldi is right about the Russia-phobes. But he’s completely wrong about Trump, as well.

  102. SPQR70AD says:

    jews declared war on Russia and Germany 100 years ago

  103. SPQR70AD says:

    but Israel with the Samson option has stated numerous times it will take parts of the west down with them

  104. SPQR70AD says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Evan-genitals do whatever their jewish masters tell them

  105. joef says:

    I have mentioned neocons as well in my previous comments (maybe other articles). I find both ilk disgusting and disingenuous. They have both coopted their respective political parties. The progressives have turned the Dems into socialist who have no regard for the working man in this nation, with the exception of lip service. They simply use them for their own ends.

    The neocons coopted the Republican party which claims to be Conservative but its just corporatist instead, serving big business at the expense of the people who actually voted for them. What do you expect by ex Trotskyites. And how both sides love war, that other people have to fight, to show how tough and committed they are.

    For disclosure I am not a peacenik and I am probably closer to being a Paleoconservative (leaning towards Reagan Democrat / Blue Dog Democrat) but I despise the unnecessary wars that our neocon & progressive elites drag us into. They love using the military that they would never join themselves. And again I believe part of the reason, besides idealogical agendas, and dirty war profiteering, is to distract and deflect us from the major problems we have in this nation (that was created by most of our elitist political masters during the last half century).

  106. Agent76 says:

    Apr 17, 2016 David Swanson – War is a Lie

    Talk by David Swanson author of “War is a Lie” recorded April 15, 2016 at Town Hall Seattle.

  107. I don’t think the people who call themselves “progressives” would agree that they like war! There are no more staunch supporters of a US capitulation to Putin, particularly in Ukraine, than the editors of the “leftwing” websites and the authors they post.

  108. @Priss Factor

    Theodore Roosevelt was not conservative: far from it, he was progressive to the core. And like most progressives, he loved war.

    • Replies: @SPQR70AD
  109. Veritatis says:
    @jacques sheete

    Well, Buchanan at least is quite probably in complete agreement with Schall. Buchanan writes about more immediate issues/policies, Schall tends to answer first questions such as “how then shall we live?”. Both have a thoroughly catholic mindset yet speak from their respective positions in life. Induction and deduction. Both approaches are valuable.

    But feel free to rant.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  110. utu says:
    @Michael Pyshnov

    It was 1967 war that changed progressives’ position on war form being anti to being maybe or why not if it is Israel’s war.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  111. RobinG says:

    Our military [equipment] is depleted, all right: depleted uranium, poisoning the world.

  112. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Foreign Expert

    Maybe the progs can’t forgive Russia for giving up communism, unlike Cuba, which remains a good country.

    Which tells us all how blinded and ignorant of Soviet history most, and not only “progs”, US “thinkers” are. Soviet Union in WW II and post-WW II would qualify as one of the most conservative societies, in which family values were extolled and, as one example out of many, homosexuality and other LGBTIQ… ideas could land one in jail. This whole “meme” of progs and “communism” is a product of people who know next to nothing about Soviet Union. Soviet “communism” was not what many people think it was.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  113. Hi Philip,

    There’s something else that should be added to your narrative.

    Those of the Leftist Faith hate Putin with a passion and hysteria in much the same way they hate Trump, and they hate Brexiteer Nigel Farage, and Marine Le Pen.

    This is because in spite of their different personalities, Trump, Putin Farage & Le Pen are all very similar figures.

    All have arisen during periods of crisis for “the little people” enabled by the delusions of the Leftist Faithful.

    All have proposed tough, decisive actions to bring the crisis to an end, and all have won (or will win, in the case of Le Pen) populist victories in spite of rigged polls, election fraud, media faked stories . . . and &tc.

    So to a mind blinded by fundamentalist adherence to the Leftist Faith, it seems blatantly obvious that someone like Putin would help a soulmate like Trump win over the forces of truth and light that they imagine they represent.

    And they have no self-consciousness about making complete fools of themselves believing ridiculous tales, even when directly contradicted by information providers such as Wkileaks.

  114. Ivan K. says:

    I was a Young Republican back then and supported the war through sheer ignorance and dislike of the sanctimoniousness of the protesters, some of whom were surely making their way to Canada to live in exile on daddy’s money while I was on a bus going to Fort Leonard Wood for basic combat training. I can’t even claim that I had some grudging respect for the antiwar crowd because I didn’t, but I did believe that at least some of them who were not being motivated by being personally afraid of getting hurt were actually sincere in their opposition to the awful things that were happening in Southeast Asia.

    According to what you say, the awful things that were happening in Southeast Asia were something you had knowledge about while supporting the war “through sheer ignorance.” I guess you supported the war not only by sheer ignorance, but also due to acceptance that
    1. in war awful things happen,
    2. readiness to participate in them
    & in contempt for people who were against what was awful in that war.

    1. extremely bad; unpleasant; disagreeable.
    2. inspiring fear; terrible: an awful noise.
    3. solemnly impressive
    (- Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010)

    Well, it’s difficult to understand your described position if ‘awful’ in your sentence means what awful is understood by everyone to mean. How can one be against people who are against something that’s bad & disagreeable by definition. You pretend to say something about yourself. In fact, what you’ve written in this passage is NOthing: it’s nonsensical. It’s incoherent.

  115. moi says:
    @john cronk

    Except that Mr. Giraldi should be asking why we Americans like war…

    • Agree: utu
  116. Anonymous [AKA "Blue Dave"] says:

    Sorry but the people you have labelled as “lefties” or “progressives” are simply not that. The Democrat party? Hillary Clinton (wasn’t she a Goldwater girl)? The Washington Post? Give me a break, you have mentioned the other wing of the bird of prey that is the US ruling class.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
  117. SPQR70AD says:
    @Bizarro World Observer

    yes TR loved war until his son got killed in WWI he became a recluse. it is all fun and games until you lose a son

  118. I think progressives constitute a kind of church. Their principles are human rights, etc, updated every so often with new rights and principles, from abolitionism, workers’ rights, feminism, and so on to anti-racism, sexual liberation, gay rights, and so on. There’s a kind of informal progressive morality that is edicted, developed, and commented upon, with its fashions and occasional hysterical enforcement.

    To show that you are a member in good standing of the church, you just have to mouthe pieties or quietly submit to them, and you’re fine. But to be a leader within the church and to rise up, you have to fight the good fight, usually within your nation, but sometimes outside of it. It’s helpful to have scapegoats, and evil dictators serve well. To show you are very strong, this can lead to hot war, as it did against Serbia in the 90s.

    Russia is a perfect target because we are used to them being the bad guys. They are very familiar and at the same time not a powerful lobby. Russia serves as a great foil because they are like us, but weaker, with less control of the media. They are like Nazis. Our second favorite bad guys! North Koreans are too far away. ChiComs also, plus we do need to do business with them. And Arabs, well, it’s complicated, because they are minorities, and therefore victims. Don’t want to seem racist. There is no risk of being racist when being against Russia, au contraire!

    I’ll just say I wish we would get along with Russia. I see absolutely no reason why we wouldn’t. We have as many reasons to get along with Russia as with Germany, Japan, or China, probably more.

  119. Miro23 says:

    It was 1967 war that changed progressives’ position on war form being anti to being maybe or why not if it is Israel’s war.

    And it was also when Israel felt confident enough to run its first major False Flag against the US (attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats) with the aim of sinking it, blaming Egypt and getting Egypt bombed by the US. Also Johnson and McNamara were in on the project, since they urgently recalled two carrier launched rescue flights heading for the ship while it was still under attack.

    The Israelis were running Johnson, and it’s not too hard to guess where they got the leverage (ref. Collins Piper’s “Final Judgment”).

  120. edNels says:

    Truth about Sweden…

    Here it is again from an other recent post: Who gains from wrecking nice countries?

  121. Z-man says:

    I had the misfortune of being subjected to watching The View the other day and one of the women, the black Hispanic one who is as ‘progressive’ as it gets, screeched out, while attacking Trump, that Russia is an enemy! Very Neocon-ish for a shit lib.

    • Replies: @OutWest
  122. @Andrei Martyanov

    Which tells us all how blinded and ignorant of Soviet history most, and not only “progs”, US “thinkers” are. Soviet Union in WW II and post-WW II would qualify as one of the most conservative societies, in which family values were extolled and, as one example out of many, homosexuality and other LGBTIQ… ideas could land one in jail.

    Sounds a lot like Germany in Third Reich.
    Thank the CIA gods, all that was changed, by sustained force involving violence and ‘psychological warfare,’ in the long, long post-war years.

    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
  123. @Anonymous

    Sorry but the people you have labelled as “lefties” or “progressives” are simply not that.

    I wanted to click ‘Agree’, but then I realized I don’t really understand who exactly a “progressive” is. It’s crystal clear that they are not anywhere near the Left; they are fucking liberals.

    Whether they are “progressives” I don’t know, and who the hell cares, because the word is meaningless. One might ‘progress’ (move forward) to any direction, including (as they do) towards the nearest garbage dump of history…

  124. @SolontoCroesus

    “Thank the CIA gods, all that was changed, by sustained force involving violence and ‘psychological warfare’…”


    When you talk, I listen.

    I am impressed by your mentioning “psychological warfare,” but I suggest ‘It’ goes deeper than just the CIA. Maybe Philip Giraldi can enter the comment “thread” here and provide some on-the-job perspective?

    At any rate, all through the bizarre ’16 presidential campaign and up unto this particular date, I am thinking, cognitive dissonance, cognitive dissonance, the phenomenon of mass cognitive dissonance, brought to your hometown.

    With all the due respect to the way you think, I feel that a stunning Operation Cognitive Dissonance is underway in the U.S. Who are the operation’s Master Planners behind weaponizing “cognitive dissonance” and the non-humanitarian intrusion into American thought processes?

    I have only pretty decent guesses to offer you, S2C, so now I will go to a Wall Street Journal “Opinion,” February 22, 2017, (today), titled “Missing the meaning of Trump,” written by Holman W. Jenskins, Jr.:

    H.W. Jenkins, Jr.: “The saddest part, though, is how quickly Democrats, following their loudest, ninniest voters, have decided to turn Mr. Trump into the Antichrist. One example : in 17 years of Howard Stern interviews, Mr. Trump appears never to have uttered a sentiment unfriendly to gays . He was a regular at Studio 54. His mentor was a powerful attorney was a powerful gay attorney. In his convention speech, Mr. Trump offered himself as the defender of “LGBTQ” citizens. Yet many gay activists now join a parade of those pronouncing themselves oppressed by a Trump presidency. Why? Pure COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: Democrats have been busy twisting his admittedly rococo image beyond reason to fit their partisan friends.”

    Never did i feel that I’d find even semi-support for my Operation Cognitive Dissonance theory in Wall Street Journal pages, bust it happened, Sc2. Right now while typing this, a beautiful CNN woman is talking how EU leaders are anxious & confused as to what the Trump administration has up it’s Armani suit sleeves. Cognitive dissonance, cognitive dissonance, and to the mortuary for “Progressive” awareness!

  125. Jimbank says:

    I am not sure I agree about your sports analogy. The more dominant Tiger Woods was, the higher and higher the ratings got for golf.

    I am also not sure the American people really are looking for a good fight. I think they want a one-sided knockout.

    As for the people who join the military, I think you are on to something.

  126. @Veritatis

    But feel free to rant.

    Oh, bless you! I was just waiting for your permission.

  127. Jim Clark says:

    Good commentary here.

    My own opinion, beyond your own on Putin:

    I have listened to his responses and read the translations of several of meetings. Now I realize that the man was KGB and is filthy rich, but this man is almost too composed, rational, and even caring when I hear his measured responses.

    If you go back to Bush senior, he had some of that. Sure, he was CIA and big oil and probably channeled his share of money his way. Still, I admired that part of him. HWB was, however, not this composed and he walked us into a war and Putin talks antiwar. So I would chose him as my president in an elected contest. Why do we demean this man? He deserves better.

  128. David says:
    @Fran Macadam

    It’s the Progressives who have trouble with Russian Orthodoxy

    I think that’s an angle that They use but it’s not in anyway a real issue. Only about a year ago China passed a law criminalizing wife-beating. Must have been the international pressure orchastrated by the Progressives, right? No, you never heard a word in the progressive media about the time prior because They weren’t waging a propaganda war against China.

    Incidentally, I agree with all the nice things you have to say about Mr Giraldi. He really is a great and prolific writer.

  129. Maxwell says:

    “Progressive”- It’s just another weasel word.

    “Progressive” is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history, sorry but that’s too great a metaphor not to steal, by the alleged “left” in this country because the Limbaughs, Kristols,et al had so demonized the word “liberal.” That’s basically it, plain and simple. The problem is, that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers, the original Progressives,were a bunch of Bolsheviks, compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the “progressive” mantle today.

    While some of us here know that modern-day liberalism was founded to be a capitalist-friendly “third way” between socialism,and conservatism, most people do not. If they did and truly understood this history they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make “liberals”, and The Democratic Party in particular, into the socialists they might want them to be.

    A “progressive” is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the “anti-democratic” turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe “more democracy” or “real democracy”, without evaluating for a minute whether the “”turn” is really an aberration. In economics, a “progressive” is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, “progressives” are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is “too little” and not too much “free enterprise” which is the problem.

    We need a capitalism based on good intentions says the one, based on a strengthening of the “individual” claims the next, and one purged of racial corruption declares the last. Fixing capitalism is the highest and in fact the only slogan of all of the above, and this in the most trivial and unhistorical way possible. Those are the last and the only words of this brand of “radical” criticism which is actually a radical support for the society as it exists… if only that society could be “allowed” to achieve its “true” nature.

    All too often “progressive” has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what.

    A progressive is someone who believes in the system.

    Progressives and liberals are as ready as conservatives to support government interventions in our lives and on the world stage. The country in question may be Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria or perhaps Iran. The clarion call is the same. “We must do something” because “we” are superior, all knowing, and chosen by a divine force to make the world in whatever image we choose.

    No one asks how “we” is defined, or if the presence of the United States is needed or wanted. No one asks about the history of past interventions and their usually negative outcomes. It is assumed that Americans are good and know what is best for the world, despite a long history of numerous brutalities carried out across the globe.

    • Agree: utu
  130. Anonymous [AKA "Judy Morris"] says:

    Who got us into WW I, WW II, the Korean War, Vietnam and the Balkan Wars? All liberal progressive Dems – Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, LBJ and Clinton. The combined death tolls of liberal progressive wars is over 100 million folks.

    Yes, liberals and progressives absolutely do LOVE war. They must get off on it!

  131. annamaria says:

    “The clarion call is the same. “We must do something” because “we” are superior, all knowing, and chosen by a divine force to make the world in whatever image we choose.”

    Note that the callers are not eager to “do something” (i.e. interventions abroad) by themselves. Like children, the “progressive” balding men and mature women (plus very-very sensitive freshmen) go marching, “freedom-lovingly,” behind a bright banner and with inspirational posters at hand. That’s it. (Picture “pink pussies” and such). After marching up to the nearest square, the “progressives” head to a nice restaurant to have a dinner together and then go home with a sense of self-satisfaction. It is doubtful that the “progressives” can be brought to reality without reinstatement of the draft.

  132. annamaria says:

    “Over the last few years, the Security Conference has been a way for Germany to serve as a link between the United States and their European partners. This year, its only goal was to force the European leaders to confirm their allegiance to the deep US state, without taking into account either the will expressed by the US People, or the change in the White House.
    A preparatory document, drawn up by the German organisers of the Conference, was handed to the participants. The Press was careful not to mention it. It contains an article by Volker Perthes, author of the Feltman plan for the total and unconditional capitulation of the Syrian Arab Republic. This eminent «expert» presents his vision of the «Greater Middle East», or rather the vision of the US «Continuity of Government».
    Quite clearly, neither faced with the vote of the US People, nor the Resistance of the Arab Peoples, do the European leaders intend to change – they can only be dismissed by the European People.”

    • Replies: @RobinG
  133. Bianca says:

    There is a reason for globalist elites to want to eliminate nation states, and it has nothing to do with ideology. Once the institutions of state are undermined and evicerated — there is no more accountability. In a complex empire style construct, population no longer makes decisions, and has nobody to call to account for failures. In all empires some people get rich at the expense of disempowered population. We will ho back to slavery. It will be called something else. We have become complacent — and almost lost our institutions to imperial slavery. We are still in danger, as population as a whole still does not grasp the danger. Thus rhe fury. It is like Russia in 2000, and Putin comes to power. All was set for a major theft of oil and gas resources. And stopped in its tracks. It took a while to sort it out, but the losers had a fit. And never stopped since.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  134. RobinG says:

    Many thanks, annamaria, for bringing such things to our attention.

    So as not to be totally depressing, here is Dennis Kucinich on Fox. Trump is reputed to watch Fox. I hope he got this Valentine’s Day Warning –
    ‘Wake Up!’: Kucinich Says Intel Community Making ‘Unprecedented’ Effort to Upend Trump

  135. Anonymous [AKA "Matias"] says:

    It’s well known fact that average American knows less about rest of the world than average European. However this is not the key fact behind the reason of warmongering liberals. They are of course brainwashed but the same thing is happening in Europe too.

    Anyway. I focus one very common mistake all kind of “experts”, media pundits and politicians are making daily. It’s this one written by Giraldi:

    “…its [Russia] economy and military budget are tiny compared to that of the United States.”

    In reality the rate between GDP and GDP-PPP in Russia is 1:3. So if you really wanted to compare the size of economies of USA and Russia you should use more likely e.g IMF’s GDP-PPP figures given rate of 1: 4.9 (Russia : USA)

    Defence budgets using only GDP dollar based figures are misleading of course. Instead of 1:10 the rate is only 1:3 or 1:3.5 favoring USA. It’s more likely US wasting relatively more money with military than Russia.

    Then there’s one very serious problem inside US economy. Actually only 28% of US GDP is real economy while 72% is mostly virtual. This is the fact why US medium wages are still near the level of 1973. According to Chinese strategic studies, US real economy has not grown hardly at all since days of Richard Nixon. What has grown is virtual, fake economy, smoke in air.

    Let’s make it clear: compared to German economy, Russia’s economy is near the same size using GDP-PPP figures. Even that estimate in my opinion is wrong. It is not that the statistics are wrong. It is that what is being compared are sets of statistics rather than two totally different economies. You see when 28% of German economy is industry (US 20%), Russia has 36% industrial share.

    Indeed, Russia’s economy operates on a far bigger scale. It is physically impossible for Germany to do many of the things Russia does without effort. Conversely there is nothing Germany does that Russia cannot do if it commits itself to doing it. The only economies that can match or surpass Russia’s in technology and depth of resources — and can do all the things Russia does — are those of China and the US. India, Germany and Japan can also do some of the things Russia does, but not all of them. No other states come close.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  136. Miro23 says:

    Orthodox Christian Europe-Russia has found its feet and is rapidly rebuilding… overall that’s good news. The US should fully ally with them and rebuild Christendom.

    It’s an interesting idea.

    If for example the United States held a referendum on Christianity, proposing it as North America’s official religion, it would probably pass. Plenty of Latinos and Blacks would vote for it, as would the American South, and the rest of the US may well also give it their support.

    1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me,
    2. Thou shalt no make unto thee any graven image
    3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
    4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.
    5. Honour thy father and thy mother.
    6. Thou shalt not kill.
    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    8. Thou shalt not steal.
    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
    10. Thou shalt not not covet thy neighbour’s house/wife/or anything else.

    The idea would of course attract fierce minority opposition:


    The First Amendment, bars laws “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” but the Founders were themselves practicing Christians and could never have imagined the moral sleaze that would overtake their country. Also the Constitution is already dead in many respects (right to privacy, State vs Federal power etc.)


    Their “freedoms” would be threatened, but in a Christian framework their “freedoms” aren’t freedoms, they’re sins. They are not free to steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, covet their neighbour’s property etc. (i.e. engage in Clinton type behavior).


    US Jewish activists strongly oppose Christianity in any form, although paradoxically the 10 Commandments come from the Old Testament and are a basis of their own religion.

    Personally I can see a lot of advantages in Americans joining Russians in a new Christendom.

  137. Leftist desire war and violence that promote their core interests, and leftist core interests are totalitarian democracy, protected victim class supremacy, and elimination of the oppressor class.

  138. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Chuck Orloski

    “It’s alright, ma, only radical Islam is bleeding “.

    When Bob Dylan performs in Israel does he have the chutzpah today to sing his passionate anti war diddys.

    Relatively little attention has been paid to his 1983 song “Neighborhood Bully” – a rare declaration of full- theoated Israel support by a mainstream American rocker.

    Robert Allen Zimmerman is a fraud. His anti war activism is as phony as his celebratory name. The lyrics equate Israel with an “exiled man, ” who is unjustly labeled a bully for fending off constant attacks by his neighbors.

    He should drop the Goyis sounding name and use his Hebrew name ( Shatai Zisl Ben Abraham) and stop pretending he is against all wars.

    Today, Robert Allen Zimmerman represents those anti Vietnam war liberal progressives, who now support the wars for Israel.

    The anti war progressives of Dylan’s era are too old to be drafted.

    It’s alright, Ma, only American boys of military age are dying for Israel.


    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
  139. @Anonymous

    “It’s a well known fact that the average American knows less about the world than the average European”

    Who’s fact is this, who determined this “Fact”?
    It is not my fact and I am quite sure that I know more about the “World” than the average european or you.

    Regarding all of the nonsense claiming that Europeans are more educated than Americans : bullshit, Europeans are more educated in “leftist” social-democratic conepts, however as far as general education is concerned they, Europeans, are not well versed in literature, philosophy or the arts, they THINK they are but they are not, and “halbgebildet” would be the most fitting term applied here, especially for the know-it-all Germans : deutsche Besserwisser”.

    Authenticjazzman ” Mensa” society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
    , @MEexpert
  140. @Anonymous

    Dear anonymous (Keith),

    Thanks for the significantly improved edit you have done with my “It’s alright, Ma…” paraphrase of Shatai Zisl Ben Abraham’s song. If Bob Dylan happens to reads your “post,” a hard acid rain is sure to fall down upon his inflated ego.

    Am I correct in that President Obama awarded Dylan a “Medal of Freedom”? If so, Shatai Zisl is fortunate that the POTUS did not take Palestinian human & political rights into account.

    In an aware nation, you’d get a “Not Stuck Inside of Immobilizing Tel Aviv Blues” free Speech Award, Anonymous (Keith)!

    For the sake of providing others with the lyrics to Zimmy’s “Neighborhood Bully,” they exist below.

    Neighborhood Bully
    Bob Dylan
    Well, the neighborhood bully, he’s just one man
    His enemies say he’s on their land
    They got him outnumbered about a million to one
    He got no place to escape to, no place to run
    He’s the neighborhood bully.
    The neighborhood bully he just lives to survive
    He’s criticized and condemned for being alive
    He’s not supposed to fight back, he’s supposed to have thick skin
    He’s supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in
    He’s the neighborhood bully.
    The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land
    He’s wandered the earth an exiled man
    Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn
    He’s always on trial for just being born
    He’s the neighborhood bully.
    Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized

  141. @Authenticjazzman

    “”… especially for the know-it-all Germans.’


    I think your commendable Mensa IQ needs a tune up, including Iskra plugs.

    F.Y.I., last year, The Unz Review featured insightful articles written by Linh Dinh while he taught at Leipzig University.

    As you know, all is relative, and such includes the history education that “average” Americans get.

    For one example, average American graduates of public high schools enter either college or the work force convinced that Hitler was Satan-personified and any other scholarly views on what happened both before, during, and after WW II are bullshit.

    Later in life, some confident American college graduates encounter Pat Buchanan’s book, “Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War” and non-objectively determine the work to be UN-American.

    Jazz compositions and performances are relative in beauty & art, and so are knowledge and wisdom in the realm of history.


  142. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Jazz compositions and performances are relative in beauty & art, and so are knowledge and wisdom in the realm of history.

    Causality is a knowable thing, thus knowledge of history is attainable–even despite all those “ranges of interpretations” some victims of which are represented greatly at Unz discussion boards. In art, the beauty is also knowable “relativity” regardless. If So What is beautiful, it is beautiful on its own since it does “adhere”, the same as Take Five same as Pud Wad, just a few jazz and fusion examples. In related news–tastes are also non-relative because standards of appropriateness do exist.

    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
  143. @Andrei Martyanov

    “In art, the beauty is also knowable “relativity” regardless.”


    I appreciate your interesting response very much, especially with regard to jazz music and ranges of listener “taste.”

    I recall how Orwell asserted that a test of “art” is longevity into time. Or something like that.

    During our rather sick times, and speaking with “relativity” in mind, I am wondering if Mapplethorpe’s “Piss Christ” will outlive the luster of the Poland’s “Black Madonna?”

    Speaking respectfully, maybe Mr. Mensa will offer some clarification here? Thanks, smmothieX12!

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  144. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Chuck Orloski

    I am wondering if Mapplethorpe’s “Piss Christ” will outlive the luster of the Poland’s “Black Madonna?”

    St. Petersburg (Russia) has a stunning art museum scene, arguably the greatest in the world (Hence St.Petersburg being #1 European, if not world’s tourist destination) among treasures of State Hermitage or of Russian Museum, there is a famous Kunstkamera, which, on the order of Peter The Great, has not only all kinds of early scientific (minerals etc.) collections but also a collection of newborns with all kinds of a physical anomalies. In layman’s lingo–freaks of nature. After all, Kunstkamera is a “cabinet of curiosities”. Serrano’s “Piss Christ” belongs there, both as an exhibit of mental illness and as a warning sign–this is the only way this so called “art” will last. I am not worried about Poland’s Black Madonna, though–she is immortal. FYI, I am an atheist.

    P.S. For people who are trying to find any “art” and meaning in peeing into the vessel with plastic crucifixion, well–I am not surprised that this “process” originated in NYC, who can only borrow great art from somebody while having very little of its own. I guess the Warhol’s Can of Campbell Soup stated everything there was to be stated already.

    • Replies: @edNels
    , @Chuck Orloski
  145. OutWest says:

    How do you distinguish screeching from their normal conversation?

    • Replies: @Z-man
  146. edNels says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Why does that belong in a serious Russian institution that caters to adult edification?

    early scientific (minerals etc.) collections but also a collection of newborns with

    In layman’s lingo–freaks of nature. After all, Kunstkamera is a “cabinet of curiosities”. Serrano’s “Piss Christ” belongs there, both as an exhibit of mental illness and as a warning sign

    I am an atheist.
    P.S. For people who are trying to find any “art” and meaning in peeing into the vessel with plastic crucifixion, well–I am not surprised that this “process” originated in NYC,

    There is a kind of sick sense a humor that conjures up that kind of obnoxious stuff that lives large in NYC. Don’t forget your Mapledong screwy crap too, but leave it where it is don’t export it like you done with Femen Pussy Riot etc.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  147. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Femen Pussy Riot etc.

    They were imported by the so called West and found a warm welcome there, including riotous pussies having an audience with none other than HRC. Karma is a bitch, isn’t it?

  148. Ragno says:

    Look, maybe this is just me, because I haven’t actually seen anybody else running this one up a flagpole. But here goes:

    I don’t think the “progressives” (just learn to start calling them shitlibs, Mr G – it’s far more accurate, and a timesaver to boot!) want war – and they absolutely don’t want with Russia, who I believe they retain a healthy fear towards.

    (However, a good portion of our old friends the neocons do, and they have been largely indistinguishable from the shitlibs for the past few years now, ideologically at least.)

    So why this constant saber-rattling at Moscow and the steadily-louder chickenhawk drumbeat? Because – somewhat ingeniously – every minute they can turn the release of the Hillary/Podesta e-mails into an International Incident demanding the swiftest, harshest response is another minute the country is successfully distracted from looking at the contents of those e-mails and coming to a new judgment of Hillary.

    Remember that the Dems’ overweening concern in the immediate wake of the election result was the shadow of prosecution and prison for Hillary Clinton. How out of character would it have been for Hillary to have chosen to read Trump’s foolishly-gallant promise to forego any charges as why, he’s got nothing at all on me! , immediately proceeding to give Soros the nod to cry havoc and loose the dawgs of war….?

    I think history will remember this Russia nonsense as just that. Of course, that judgment will be recorded in Chinese characters, but that’s another story.

  149. @Andrei Martyanov


    Thanks for being a gentleman & not scalding me for writing Mapplethorpe as “Piss Christ” creator and not Serrano. Good thing here is that Authenticjazzman does not have an open shot to take at me instead of a Campbell soup can.

    In conclusion, I typically whine when commenters travel far off particular article subjects. So for christ’s sake, & going forward, I hope we can return to the particular mental illness that afflicts “Progressives.” In comment above, I have described Cognitive Dissonance-Based Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.

    Christos voskres! I return now to driving school bus.

  150. MEexpert says:

    It is not my fact and I am quite sure that I know more about the “World” than the average european or you.

    The self proclaimed Mensa member strikes again. Your posts have shown that you don’t know anything about the world. Average American doesn’t even know much about the United States, let alone the world. Boasting about your fake credentials doesn’t make you knowledgeable. So stop throwing your Mensa membership. As I have said before, real members don’t brag about it. Europeans and Asians are more educated than average Americans in every subject including Science and Mathematics.

    Authenticjazzman ” Mensa” society member since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

    You really need to drop this nonsense, It impresses no one but your ego. No one cares whether you are a Mensa member, real or fake, or not. You have some kind of complex that you need to take care of soon.

  151. annamaria says:

    Lets see if the US “progressives” will be able to “find Waldo” on this pic:

    “Chrystia Freeland, appointed last week to be the new Canadian Foreign Minister, claims that her maternal family were the Ukrainian victims of Russian persecution..
    The records now being opened by the Polish government in Warsaw reveal that Freeland’s maternal grandfather Michael (Mikhailo) Chomiak was a Nazi collaborator from the beginning to the end of the war. He was given a powerful post, money, home and car by the German Army in Cracow, then the capital of the German administration of the Galician region. His principal job was editor in chief and publisher of a newspaper the Nazis created. His printing plant and other assets had been stolen from a Jewish newspaper publisher, who was then sent to die in the Belzec concentration camp. During the German Army’s winning phase of the war, Chomiak celebrated in print the Wehrmacht’s “success” at killing thousands of US Army troops. As the German Army was forced into retreat by the Soviet counter-offensive, Chomiak was taken by the Germans to Vienna, where he continued to publish his Nazi propaganda, at the same time informing for the Germans on other Ukrainians. They included fellow Galician Stepan Bandera, whose racism against Russians Freeland has celebrated in print, and whom the current regime in Kiev has turned into a national hero.”
    The progeny with the war criminal has a wonderful time with Groysman (Ukraine’s Jewish PM) and Poroschenko (Ukraine’s President). Birds of feather…

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  152. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    In a complex empire style construct, population no longer makes decisions


    Let’s say it again.

    Global empire means death to the nation state and with it democracy, since it is only with control over local affairs that democracy has meaning.

    World government would, aside from being totally in the control of the money power, not give a damn about local interests. Indeed, it would proudly assert that it ruled in the interests of all humanity and that just because the ancestors of today’s Germans, or Canadians or Americans built up a nation with a huge store of capital in the form of infrastructure, institutions and an educated populace, there is no reason why the exploding population of the Third World should not move to the West and enjoy the fruits of the labor to which the toil and genius of their own ancestors did not contribute.

    Global democracy means wiping the European people’s from the face of the earth. Their fertility is collapsing, while their countries are being inundated by highly philoprogenetive Third Worlders, some openly declaring their intention to replace the European people, not by the sword but by the womb.

    This the Treason Party, the likes of Obama, Trudeau, Merkel, Blair and their many accomplices, well know — as do the media who as President Trump stated, “are the enemy of the people.”

  153. RobinG says:


    Robert Higgs on policy:

    “As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent “failed” policies. Policies that so not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers-that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: follow the money.

    When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

    So U.S. soldiers get killed, so Palestinians get insulted, robbed, and confined to a set of squalid concentration areas, so the “peace process” never gets far from square one, etc., etc. — none of this makes the policies failures; these things are all surface froth, costs not born by the policy makers themselves but by the cannon-fodder masses, the bovine taxpayers at large, and foreigners who count for nothing.”

    Robert Higgs (from The Real Purpose of U.S. Mid-East Policies)

  154. @Chris Bridges

    As bad as Stalin was, Trotsky would have been even worse, and (even if only instinctively) ordinary Russians understand this. Hence the not-inaccurate perception that Stalin saved Russian culture, if not civilization.

  155. @Fran Macadam

    I think you are omitting the slavish (and stupid) obedience the Bible-thumpers have towards Israel. Traditional Jewish hostility towards Russia plays a big role in all this, and being basically lapdogs, the southern evangelicals are right on board with this. (Fanatical pro-Zionism being about the only acceptable public outlet all cuckservatives have these days.)

  156. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Well, I think we know which ethnic group (many of that group’s members, not all) wants the US to fight endless wars in the Middle East of behalf of a certain little Middle Eastern country and which wants the US to destroy Russia.

    Hint: That ethnic group is not Christian.

    Question: When will Christian Americans take back their country and stop pandering to that ethnic group?

    I have tried to be tactful.

    • Replies: @SortingHat
  157. @annamaria

    The Germans killed “thousands of US troops” in 1941-42?

  158. John D says:


    When were you at Ft. Leonard Wood? In 1969 I was in BCT there from June to August, then in AIT to October.

    John D.

    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
  159. @John D

    July through September 1968 for BCT followed by Intel School at Ft Holabird in Baltimore October through March 69.

  160. Sparkon says:

    I wrote:

    In his speech to Congress on April 2, 1917, President Wilson had claimed that the SS Sussex had been sunk by the Germans.

    That is incorrect. I have checked this speech
    Address to a Joint Session of Congress Requesting a Declaration of War Against Germany,
    and there is no mention of the Sussex in it.

    Wilson merely mentions submarines eight times, including:

    Because submarines are in effect outlaws when used as the German submarines have been used against merchant shipping,

    Wilson did cite the Sussex in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress on German Violations of International Law, April 19, 1916:

    One of the latest and most shocking instances of this method of warfare was that of the destruction of the French cross-Channel steamer Sussex . It must stand forth, as the sinking of the steamer Lusitania did, as so singularly tragical and unjustifiable as to constitute a truly terrible example of the inhumanity of submarine warfare as the commanders of German vessels have for the past twelvemonth been conducting it.

    And of course we know that the Sussex, though damaged, did not sink, and wallowed to port, where it was photographed.

    ‘Just to set the record straight. Thanks.

  161. We are like 1940 all over again with run away Tarrifs and Europe being an awful mess. The purpose of Tarrifs is that by making things more expensive overseas people will be forced to make in America again. There is almost nothing made in America. Half our own military equipment is made in China and assembled here.

    It got so confusing that a law was passed that if a sticker said “Made in America” then it was but it was the sticker that was made in the US because parts from different countries would go into one machine.

    The problem lies that big corporations believe machines should break after warranty so people will keep (re) buying broken junk. Oliver Twist was about the Industrial age revolting when machines were taking over and skilled workers were worried about quality going away as any object was done by one or two human workers with their hands guiding tools.

    They stopped protesting when it was agreed that machines would not ruin quality but preserve it by doing the same things and getting higher wages for operating the machines.

    In the 1960s and onwards big companies collaborated that machines shouldn’t be so good as to mimic human hands or nobody would buy anything so decided to purposely make machines defective after a certain date. There is a term for that I can’t remember but describes what it means.

  162. The problem now is there is no middle class. It was literally ripped apart by the left and right caving in and forming their own one world system. The people who knew how to make things are either dying or dead. This generation for the most part wants lazyness and everything handed to them. They believe the US Government “owes” them something.

  163. @Anonymous

    Churches are not allowed by law to stand up or they get their tax cuts taken away. Churches are exempt from some taxes.

  164. Tell me if I’m nuts but the following theory seems very plausible to me: Jews hate Russia and the Slavic lands as a result of age-old animosities. They supported Bolshevism for that reason and worked energetically for ‘peaceful coexistence’ with the Soviet Union. Now that Communism has collapsed the former Soviet bloc is in danger of reverting to Christianity and anti-Semitism. Indeed, these nations are the lone hold-outs against the political correctness engulfing Europe, even Ireland now de-Christianizing. Since Russia is a nuclear power, it poses the last major obstacle to the hegemony of post-Christian Europe and the agenda of Israel in the middle east.

    I have not seen this theory propounded anywhere, but I recall during the Cold War a number of Jewish and liberal journalists arguing that Communism wasn’t such a bad thing in eastern Europe since it kept the lid on anti-Semitism, nationalism, and other reactionary tendencies. In today’s climate, where abortion and gay marriage are “the new normal,” the wickedness of post-communist Russia must seem all the more glaring.

    It’s obvious that politicians like Graham and McCain have made service to the Jewish community their principal selling point. They don’t need to be told that villifying Russia is on the agenda. I suggest the former fact explains the latter.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.