Category Archives: BAB’s A List

UPDATED (11/7): America’s Embracing Cultural Marxism; Putin’s Reviving Russian Traditionalism

BAB's A List, Christianity, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, John McCain, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Russia

By Dr. Boyd Cathey

The unrestrained Russophobia of a John McCain or a Bill Kristol or Max Boot is grounded in their essential belief in such concepts as international “human rights” and America’s role as the global “enforcer” of those rights, which impels them to condemn Russia’s “persecution” of homosexuals, its institution of mandatory Christian religious instruction in its public schools (which neoconservatives condemn as “religious intolerance”), and its refusal to accept the economic and political straightjacket of the EU or other “international organizations.”

Additionally, as many of the leading Neocon pundits and writers are of Russian Jewish descent and Russian nationalism and Orthodoxy imply for them various forms of historical anti-semitism and the pre-revolutionary era anti-Jewish pogroms, Putin’s Russia is seen as symbolizing a possible recrudescence of those evils (despite the strong support he has received from Russia’s native Jewish population).

So, thus, the conjunction and harmony of Max Boot’s and Romney’s view, with George Soros’s view that Russia is now globally, “enemy number one.” And thus, also, some of the reasons for that unseemly ideological “marriage”….

Back at the beginning of 2015 (December 29, 2014), I wrote a long, heavily documented article about Putin and Putin’s Russia, attempting to shed some light on his past and the various largely spurious accusations leveled against him. It was reprinted by over thirteen web sites, both in the United States and overseas, and translated into Italian, Russian and a couple of other languages. I won’t reproduce it today, although it may be accessed at: http://www.unz.com/article/examining-the-hatred-of-vladimir-putin-and-russia/ (I have revised and updated it since then and can send that newer version to anyone requesting it.) Rather, today I will offer some details of what the media, in its near entirety, does not report, or, if it does, it does with a pronounced and virulent anti-Putin bias.

Over the past few months Russia has been commemorating the 100th anniversary of the bloody Bolshevik Revolution (1917), the results of which included the violent and horrible deaths of approximately 100 million human  beings (according to the authoritative Black Book of Communism). Vladimir Putin has repeatedly traveled to various sites of infamous Communist murder and criminality from that era, and has dedicated memorials—“walls of grief”—and newly-erected and rebuilt Christian churches to memorialize and honor those victims. Russian cinema has, likewise, joined this effort of memory and correcting the Marxist view of history, with numerous (and popular) films that portray a frankly, very open anti-Communist viewpoint.

You would think that the Western media and our Western political leaders would welcome this—that after the life-and-death struggle with Communism for over seven decades our leaders would celebrate this turn of events.

But, no, rather Putin’s praxis is seen as nothing more than “calculating,” the “insincere use” of those anniversaries to consolidate his “dictatorial” or “neo-Stalinist” rule, and, more grievously, his refusal to fully accept all those wonderful fruits of Western-style globalism and, yes, his unreasonable rejection of the triumph of that other variant of Marxism, the dominant Cultural Marxism which pervades the West.

Is this not, then, Leon Trotsky’s revenge? Stalin’s legions were incapable of bringing down the Christian West, and Soviet Communism of the doddering Kremlin commissars ended up on that “ash heap of history.” But Trotsky, whom Stalin had murdered in his Mexican exile in 1940, now, with his millions of ideological descendants and godchildren, appears well on his way to actual and ultimate triumph.

Today, then, I ask your indulgence at the length: I pass on four items that offer a somewhat impressionistic view of what has happened in and to Russia since August 1991, when Vladimir Putin—that ex-KGB bureaucrat—was largely responsible for thwarting and defeating the KGB coup against the incipient anti-Communist Russian republic. (Yes, that is just one fact most of our Neocon pundits like to omit.) First, London-based Professor Paul Robinson’s examination of how the establishment Western media continues to ignore Putin’s open and vigorous rejection of Soviet Communism and his exhibited desire to memorialize its victims.

Second, I pass on a short article that appeared in The Washington Post back in 2008, shortly after the death of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in which he praised Putin’s efforts to revive Russia’s traditional Christian and moral heritage, and, equally, Putin’s praise of Solzhenitsyn’s valiant opposition to Godless Communism.

Third, from that epitome of Establishment Deep State “high” journalism, I reproduce a 2013 article from The Atlantic monthly, worryingly suggesting that Putin was becoming the head of a “worldwide traditionalist conservative crusade” against the progressivist and modern West. It literally sent shivers down their secularist spines. Yet, the article is fascinating for offering a view in not only the minds of the cultural Marxist Left, but, with a certain irony, found also in much of basic Neocon thinking.

Fourth, from the large collection of Putin’s speeches that I have archived, I pass on excerpts of his “State of the State” address to the Russian people, December 16, 2013—this is representative of the rhetoric and imagery, and the historical references that he employs in most of his addresses, and also exemplifies the type of conservative legislation his political party, United Russia, has enacted in the Russian Duma. (The UR party hold 340 of the 450 seats.)

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

Related:

“Examining the Hatred of Vladimir Putin and Russia” By Boyd Cathey.

Wall of Grief” BY PROFESSOR PAUL ROBINSON.

Toward end, Solzhenitsyn embraced Putin’s Russia,” Boston.com.

Vladimir Putin, Conservative Icon,” By Brian Whitmore.

TRANSCRIPT: [Putin] Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly.

UPDATE (11/7):

John McCain: George Soros’ Favorite Republican

BAB's A List, Conservatism, Donald Trump, EU, Foreign Aid, John McCain, Neoconservatism, The State, The West, UN

By Dr. Boyd Cathey

Senator John McCain has renewed his war of words with the president. McCain just received something called the “Liberty Award” at the hands of his close friend, former Vice-President Joe Biden. He used the occasion to launch a wide-ranging attack on the president and his foreign policy, although not mentioning him by name.

What caught my attention in particular was McCain’s statement that “We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil.” McCain’s phrase illustrates the very clear defining wall, the unbridgeable chasm, that divides traditional conservatives who do believe that we live in a country to which our ancestors came largely in communities of like ethnic origin and ancestry, specifically for land and for their families and on behalf of which they shed their blood—from those who envisage this country as founded upon various nebulous “propositions” about universal equality and “making the [whole] world safe for democracy.”

It is the radical difference between those of us who inherited the proud legacy and belief from our ancestors that our country is a nation of families in communities, baptized in patriots’ blood, toil and tears, and those whose ideological zeal impels them to turn the nation into a “cause.” It is the chasm that puts John McCain and the Neoconservatives on the side of the fanatical Left and denies to them, in effect, the title of “conservative” which they so earnestly desire.

To use McCain’s words and refute them, our belief is not that we hold to a “half-baked, spurious nationalism,” as he calls it, but to our familial traditions and heritage and to the land we are attached to and love. Our hope, our desire, is to pass on that inheritance, undamaged as much as possible, to our offspring—not to send those offspring to fight in never-ending civil wars to “establish liberal democracy” and protect same sex marriage in every remote desert oasis or jungle on the face of the globe.

The Arizona senator’s reasoning may have much to do with the financial largesse he has received and continues to receive from George Soros, the globalist billionaire and fierce advocate of a New World Order. It is Soros’s goal that the world’s nations disappear into some international socialist super-state. In addition to indirectly funding the “Resist” Trump movement, Black Lives Matter and the Antifa revolutionaries, he has spent billions of dollars to support subversive activities in those countries that are recalcitrant and hesitant to accept globalist control. Most recently, Hungary and Russia are two prime examples in Europe of nations that firmly resist Soros and his billions that have been funneled to “domestic” subversion in those states. But Viktor Orban in Hungary and Vladimir Putin in Russia are fighting back.

Soros, through his pass-through Open Society Foundation, has handsomely supported McCain and his McCain Institute for International Leadership to the tune of millions of dollars. And what is palpably evident  is that when it comes to lapping up the crumbs of Big Brother, John McCain is right there, tongue always out, eagerly doing the Deep State’s bidding. He is, above all, the “Republican that leftist Democrats love.”

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

Was Stephen Paddock Targeting Deplorables? One Perfectly Plausible Theory Of The Crime

BAB's A List, Crime, Left-Liberalism, Logic, Media, Reason, Terrorism

BY JACK KERWICK

As I write this, there is only a small handful of facts, or alleged facts, that all of the talking heads in Big Media seem to agree upon regarding “the largest mass shooting in American history.”

First, 64 year-old Stephen Paddock, a white man and resident of Nevada, appears to have acted alone when he opened fire on over 22,000 country music concert attendees in Las Vegas.

Second, Paddock had a lot of weaponry, guns of various sorts, in the hotel room that he used as a sniper’s nest.

Third, Paddock is a relatively wealthy man who enjoyed gambling and may have accrued quite a bit of debt as a consequence of his vice.

Fourth, the shooter has a girlfriend, Marilou Danley, an Asian woman who has since “returned to the United States from the Philippines.”  Initially, police cleared her of any wrongdoing. According to the latest update, however, they still plan on interrogating her when she returns to the states.

Fifth, nearly 60 people are now dead and over 500 people have been hospitalized.

Finally, according to his own brother, Paddock had no political or religious affiliation.

As things always go with these sorts of matters, what we think we know now will inevitably change and, in some respects, undoubtedly change dramatically as more information comes to light.  So far, though, this is essentially the extent of the propositions on which the Big Media insiders agree.

Admittedly, I don’t know anything more at the moment.  However, I’m shocked (though not particularly surprised) that no one—namely, no “conservative” commentator—has so much as suggested even the possibility that this historically unprecedented massacre just may be the event in which the violent hatred to which suspected Deplorables have been routinely subjected for over a year-and-a-half has reached its bloody climax.

From even before President Trump received his party’s nomination, leftist agitators, mostly fans of Bernie Sanders, began making it a habit to crash Trump’s rallies and assault his supporters. Since this time, literally hundreds of Trump supporters, men, women, and young teenagers—the folks who Hillary Clinton infamously characterized as “deplorables”—have had their person and property abused by leftists of different sorts.  Antifa (“Anti-fascists”), BLM (Black Lives Matter), and BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) are some of the more militant leftist organizations that came to be counted upon to attack indiscriminately, and with a range of weaponry, Trump supporters—i.e. veterans, flag-waving patriots, Republicans, Christians, and anyone and everyone else who is deemed “fascist.”

Pepper spray and bear mace; sticks of dynamite and Molotov cocktails; bats, pipes, clubs, and flagpoles; stones, flamethrowers, and bottles; feces and urine—these are among the weapons that have been used against those who have declared their support for “free speech,” Trump, and the American flag.

Some far left members of “The Resistance” have indeed shown up to some events armed with guns, although no one, to my knowledge, has yet used these guns on Trump supporters.

Of course, as recently as June, a Bernie Sanders admirer and avid MSNBC viewer, James Hodgkinson, in an effort to slaughter as many Republican members of Congress as possible, shot several, including and most notably, Steve Scalise. (And shortly before this event, another zealous Sanders fan and Trump opponent, Jeremy Christian, whom the media tried absurdly to depict as a “white supremacist terrorist,” stabbed three men on a Portland, Oregon train, killing two of them.)

In other words, the last nearly two years have established two things:

(a) Violence against anyone and everyone who is suspected of having contributed to the election of President Trump (and the GOP) has been normalized.

(b) This political violence has been normalized by those on the far left.

It also bears noting that Antifa and the like, in affirming their allegiance to “The Resistance,” affirm their ideological and political affinity with all of those “mainstream” Democrats in Congress and the media who similarly raise the proverbial banner of The Resistance.  For that matter, the embarrassment of a former presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, also proclaimed her own allegiance to The Resistance some months back, as did former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Democrats own the fringes of their party.

Now, given the patterns of the last two years (to say nothing of the left’s long history of violence), is not the theory that the Vegas killer was but another committed Resister, determined to, “by any means necessary,” “bash the fash” not eminently plausible?

After all, the predominantly white country music fans upon whom Paddock set his sights constitute the collective poster child of the Deplorable, a fact of which leftists, in their ever articulate manner, have spared no occasion to remind us from the moment that word broke of this outrage.

Shouldn’t someone in Big Media, specifically, in the so-called “conservative” media, at least raise these points?

Can there be any doubt that had this been a rap concert—an event comprised of tens of thousands of black men, women, and children—that, despite being short on verifiable facts, the very media figures who now refuse to indulge speculation as to the shooter’s motive would have wasted no time in speculating about “racism?”

Can we doubt that had the targeted event been a gathering of tens of thousands of Hispanics or Muslims or gays that we would have been treated to endless speculation concerning the likely “racism,” “Islamophobia,” and “homophobia,” respectively, of the shooter?

There is nothing objectionable about posing a hypothesis, as long as the theory is reasonable, rendered plausible (if not true) by the known facts. Intellectually curious people speculate. Speculation is actually preferable to the incessant repetition of talking points with which Americans are relentlessly bombarded by the media whenever events like this occur.

That those in the media now refuse to speculate or, to put it more accurately, that they refuse to advance the most plausible of speculative theories—the shooter, like the 66 year-old James Hodgkinson, who was in his age cohort, was an anti-Republican, anti-Trump zealot—is explained by the likely fact that he shared their animosity toward the same objects.

While I may be proven wrong, I’d bet dollars to donuts that Stephen Paddock was driven by the same homicidal hatred of all things to his right that animated Hodgkinson.

Paddock, I find it more credible than not, saw himself as a member of The Resistance.

***

Townhall.com columnist Jack Kerwick has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Temple University, a master’s degree in philosophy from Baylor University, and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and religious studies from Wingate University. He teaches philosophy at several colleges in the New Jersey and Pennsylvania areas.

 

 

 

Rocket Man & The Messy Calculus Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction

BAB's A List, Foreign Policy, Military, War, WMD

Writes Barely A Blog’s resident physicist Myron Pauli:

Missile defense like the Israelis had against the HAMAS missiles “worked” because:

1. The missiles were poorly guided – hence only a limited number required defense.

2. The missile attack was not near-simultaneous – hence the system was not overwhelmed.

3. The missiles did not have nukes – hence they either fell harmlessly or one or two
hit a home or building with limited damage.

However, 34 years after Reagan’s “Star Wars” speech of March 23, 1983 and half a trillion dollars, we are still as vulnerable to massive damage in a nuclear war.

The other reality is that one cannot decouple “defense” from “offense” in that the US may be more likely to be offensively “reckless” if we think (real or delusion) that we are “invulnerable.”

As to THAAD (Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence): The Department of Defense contractors believe in them, but then they are just tested in DoD controlled scenarios. Still, China and North Korea think they are aggressive and this might get them to be more on a “hair trigger” to launch if they think the US is going to start a war. It is always a messy “calculus” of mass destruction.

The history of America’s “Hitler of the year” villains like Saddam, Qaddafi, Assad, and now Kim Jong Un is that the US seems incapable of learning from its mistakes. Kim Jong Un learned to never give up nuclear weapons – they are his lifeline. Even if he fired three at Seoul and three at Tokyo and only one got to hit both cities – that is enough of a threat to scare the shit out of everyone. With nukes, it doesn’t matter if you can stop “most” or if a few still get through!

****

Dr. Myron Pauli received his Ph.D. from Cambridge MA (MIT), in 1981, and has worked on infrared sensors, mainly at Naval Research Laboratory in Washington DC. He is distantly related to physicist Wolftgang Pauli. Click on the “BAB’s A List” category to access the Pauli archive.